\ 


/OW' 


M I 


BERNARD    SHAW 


The  Man  and  The  Mask 


BY 


RICHARD   BURTON 


NEW  YORK 

HENRY    HOLT    AND    COMPANY 

1916 


Copyright,  1916, 

BY 

HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 
Published  November,  1916 


THE    QUINN    tc    BODEN     CO      PRESS 
RAHWAi,    N.    J. 


PREFACE 

The  following  pages  attempt  to  give  within 
limits  somewhat  sharply  drawn  a  definite  idea  of 
the  personality,  the  work,  and  the  meaning  of  a 
dramatist  of  our  day  who  has  gained  distinction, 
invited  abuse,  and  secured  in  excess  the  dubious 
compliment  of  misrepresentation.  So  far  as  the 
book  can  claim  to  be  a  contribution  to  the  subject, 
it  may  base  it  on  the  succinctness  of  the  presenta- 
tion; the  analyses  of  the  plays  in  chronologic 
sequence,  technic  as  well  as  teaching  and  literary 
quality  in  mind;  and  upon  the  chapters  in  which 
respectively  Shaw's  craft  as  an  artist  of  the  thea- 
tre and  his  intellectual  significance  as  publicist 
and  philosopher  are  studied. 

No  one  can  write  a  book  on  Bernard  Shaw  with- 
out acknowledging  the  inevitable  obligation  to  Dr. 
Archibald  Henderson,  the  authoritative  biographer 
of  the  playwright,  and  the  man  best  fitted  to  de- 
cide any  question  pertaining  to  him.  The  present 
writer  renders  grateful  thanks  to  Dr.  Henderson 
for  his  quick  and  generous  giving  of  information 
not  otherwise  to  be  secured :  a  debt  as  pleasant  as 
it  is  imperative  to  pay  in  this  preface. 


383084 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

PAUU 

I. 

A   Preliminary   View    .... 

1 

II. 

The    Man 

15 

III. 

The  Evidence  of  the  Plays 

34 

"  Widowers'   Houses  "... 

39 

"The   Philanderer"    .... 

45 

"  Mrs.  Warren's   Profession  "    . 

49 

X 

t    "  Arms  and  the  Man  "... 

58 

IV. 

The    Evidence    of    the    Plays,    Con- 

tinued:            

66 

"  Candida  " 

66 

"  HowfHe  Lied  to  Her  Husband  "  . 

74 

'    "You  Never  Can  Tell"    . 

76 

-  "  The  Man  of  Destiny  "    . 

82 

V"Jhe   Devil's   Disciple"    . 

89 

"  Caesar  and  Cleopatra  "    . 

95 

"  Captain  Brassbound's  Conversion  " 

100 

"  The  Admirable  Bashville  "     . 

106 

V. 

The    Evidence    of    the    Plays,    Con- 

tinued:             

108 

"  Man  and  Superman  "... 

108 

"John  Bull's  Other   Island"    . 

114 

vii 


Vlll 

CHAPTER 


Con 
Pos 


CONTENTS 

"  Passion,  Poison,  and  Petrifaction 

"Major  Barbara" 

"  The   Doctor's   Dilemma  " 

"  The  Interlude  at  The  Playhouse 

"  Getting  Married  "    . 

VI.     The    Evidence    of    the    Plays, 
eluded:  .... 

"  The  Showing-up    of    Blanco 

net"  .... 

"  Press    Cuttings  " 
"  Misalliance "    .        .        . 
"  The  Dark  Lady  of  the  Sonnets  " 
^  "  Fanny's    First   Play  " 
*'  Androcles  and  the  Lion  " 
"  Overruled  "... 
"  Pygmalion  "... 
"  Great   Catherine  "    . 
"The  Music  Cure"    . 

VII.     The   Social  Thinker    . 
VIII.     The   Poet   and    Mystic 
IX.     The    Theatre   Craftsman    . 
X.     Shaw's  Place  in  Modern  Drama 
Bibliography           .... 
Index 


BERNARD   SHAW 

THE  MAN  AND  THE  MASK 


.'!»  "  *  * 


BERNARD    SHAW 

CHAPTER  I 

A  PRELIMINARY  VIEW 

It  might  be  said  that  to  declare  Shaw  a  man 
behind  a  mask  is  only  a  way  of  calling  him  a  hu- 
man being.  We  are  all  masks,  as  the  very  ety- 
mology of  person  implies.  Behind  our  words 
and  deeds  and  personalities  hides  the  real  ego 
known  only  to  itself  and  its  maker;  indeed, 
lucky  if  in  an  occasional  crisis  it  be  known  to 
itself.  George  Eliot  says  somewhere  that  we 
are  always  either  overestimating  or  underesti- 
mating our  fellows ;  it  is  only  God  who  sees  us  as 
we  are.  The  gnomic  saying  of  the  Greeks, 
"  Know  thyself,"  takes  a  deeper  meaning  as  its 
full  modern  implications  are  realized. 

Nevertheless,  the  title  of  this  book  is  justified 
in  that  Shaw  has  seen  fit  to  adopt  a  method  and 
has   fostered   a   popular   idea   of   him  which   ob- 


2  BEj^NARD  SHAW 

scure  his  true  personality  and  the  meaning  of 
his  work.  /He  has,  by  his  own  confession,  put  on 
the  garb  of  the  mountebank  and  attracted  wide 
public  attention  thereby;  his  purpose  in  so  do- 
ing is  not  self-advertisement,  though  the  reverse 
is  often  assumed;  but  rather,  the  more  general 
hearing  thus  secured  for  his  views. 

As  a  result,  and  quite  naturally,  he  is  among 
the  best  known  and  least  known  of  men.  His 
vogue  as  a  dramatist  is  very  great,  he  is  both 
notorious  and  famous  in  this  phase  of  his  activ- 
ity; yet  little  understood,  even  yet,  in  the  true 
sense.  Shaw  first  suffered  from  the  darkness  of 
obscurity;  now  he  suffers  from  that  excess  of 
light  offered  by  newspapers:  which  is  darkness 
visible.  Of  old,  misunderstood  and  neglected,  it 
is  his  paradoxical  fate, — with  a  certain  fitness 
for  the  dealer  in  paradox, — when  lauded  and  run 
after,  to  be  still  misunderstood.  If  the  mounte- 
bank hides  the  man,  he  himself  must  divide  the 
blame  with  the  public ;  since  it  is  by  his  own 
preference  that  he  has  put  an  antic  disposition 
on. 

The  present  volume  essays  to  find,  and  to 
delineate  within  moderate  limits,  the  man  behind 


A  PRELIMINARY  VIEW  S 

the  mask;  and  showing  him  in  his  work,  to  ex- 
hibit the  true  lineaments  of  a  forceful  and  seri- 
ous satiric  thinker  whose  skill  in  dramaturgy 
places  him  with  the  ablest  playwrights  of  his 
time.  It  seeks  to  avoid  alike  the  shallow  misap- 
preciations  of  the  more  common  estimate  and  the 
super-laudation  of  Shaw  idolaters.  It  is  based 
upon  hearty,  but,  I  trust,  clear-eyed  admiration, 
and  expresses  the  belief  that,  rightly  seen,  Ber- 
nard Shaw  is  a  fine  artist  of  the  theatre  and  a 
worthy  leader  in  the  twentieth  century  eclaire- 
cissement  of  the  English-speaking  people. 

The  contrast  between  Shaw  today  and  Shaw 
when  he  began  to  write  plays  is  in  itself  a  drama. 
During  the  theatre  season  of  1914-5,  no  less  than 
seven  of  his  plays  were  shown  in  New  York  City 
alone.  In  Germany  and  France,  in  Russia  and 
Scandinavia,  no  dramatic  author  of  English 
speech,  save  possibly  Shakspere,  equals  him  in 
popularity.  A  Frenchman,  M.  Hamon,  has  writ- 
ten a  critical  bock,  the  sub-title  of  which,  "  The 
Moliere  of  the  Twentieth  Century,"  is  its  own  \ 
comment.  Here  is  a  man  in  danger  of  being 
what  is  called  a  classic  before  he  dies:  still 
another   paradox.     And   for   nine  years   during 


4  BERNARD  SHAW 

his  novitiate  in  London,  his  earnings  by  his  pen 
amounted  to  six  pounds. 

Nevertheless,  as  I  have  implied,  not  only  with 
the  general  public,  who  get  their  caricature  of 
any  person  of  public  import  through  gossip, 
printed  or  spoken,  by  hearsay  and  haphazard; 
but  also  with  numerous  intelligent  playgoers 
and  play-readers,  he  is  still  little  more  than  an 
amusing,  irresponsible  fellow,  a  phrase  maker 
and  iconoclast  of  conventions,  whose  forte  is  the 
detached  jibe,  the  conscienceless  though  scintil- 
lant  epigram,  whose  sole  purpose  is  to  shock  and 
overturn.  These  impute  a  kind  of  merit  to  him 
in  that  he  has  popularized  the  thesis  drama;  but 
stop  there.  To  not  a  few  who  go  a  little  further 
in  acceptance,  he  remains  an  intellectual  cock- 
tail, not  so  much  mental  food  as  a  stimulant  of 
questionable  peptonic  worth. 

All  such  fail  to  see  that  while  the  shock  in 
Shaw  is  doubtless  there,  there  is  a  hope  behind 
it:  the  hope  to  shock  an  inert  mass  into  thinking 
about  sundry  vital  latter-day  social  matters;  a 
galvanic  process  brought  about  by  the  driving 
power  of  a  wit  backed  by  an  alert,  serious 
mind. 


A  PRELIMINARY  VIEW  5 

It  were  foolish  to  deny  that  the  importance  of  i 
Shaw's  subject-matter  as  well  as  his  seriousness 
of  intention  are  easily  lost  sight  of  in  his  some-  > 
what  startling  manner  of  presentation.  He  is 
his  own  worst  enemy  in  this  respect.  Not  only 
has  he  adopted  the  methods  of  the  showman — 
"  the  cart  and  the  trumpet  for  me,"  he  cries — 
but  it  would  appear  at  times  that  he  takes  a  wil- 
ful pleasure  in  puzzling  journeyman  brains.  He 
would  agree  with  Carlyle  as  to  the  proportion  of 
fools  in  the  British  Isles  (subtracting  the  Celts), 
but  would  raise  the  percentage.  And  he  has  the 
mischievous  habit — there  is  a  touch  of  the  enfant 
terrible  in  this  complex  personality — of  stating 
his  thought  in  terms  of  whimsical  exaggeration. 
We  must  simply  a<jcept  this  as  a  part  of  the 
technic  of  his  dialectics,  and  make  the  expected 
allowance.  The  literalist  has  a  hard  time  with 
Bernard  Shaw,  while  the  latter  looks  on  with  a 
malicious  grin,  though  the  most  amiable  of 
men. 

Moreover,  of  all  writers  and  thinkers,  he  is  the 
most  dangerous  to  listen  to  in  garbled  form  or 
to  trust  in  sentences  disrupted  from  their  setting. 
And    as     the    newspapers     exist,     among    other 


6  BERNARD  SHAW 

worthier  objects,  for  the  purpose  of  headlining 
human  utterances,  and  this  is  another  name  for 
distortion,  he  suffers  peculiarly. 

ITo  illustrate:  in  his  parliamentary  report  on 
the  censorship  of  plays,  he  says :  "  I  am  not  an 
ordinary  playwright  in  general  practice.  I  am 
a  specialist  in  immoral  and  heretical  plays." 
Those  who  read  to  run  away,  want  no  more  than 
this.  Shaw  stands  self-condemned  before  them. 
But  if  this  sufficiently  challenging  remark  be 
taken  in  its  connection,  and  the  whole  screed 
read  (which  perhaps  two  or  three  will  do  of  the 
hundred  who  will  hear  or  read  the  plays),  it  will 
be  evident  that  Shaw  means  that  he  writes  plays 
that  run  counter  to  what  he  deems  the  pseudo- 
morality  of  our  day ;  "  immoral  "  turns  out  to 
be  "  moral,"  in  his  Shavian  sense.  Had  he  said 
this  in  the  usual  unpiquant  way,  he  had  not  been 
Bernard  Shaw,  nor  have  arrested  the  jaded  at- 
tention. Thus,  his  brilliancy  as  a  writer  gets  in 
the  way  of  his  thought,  and  we  blame  his  man- 
ner rather  than  our  haste  or  unwillingness  to 
read  him  to  the  end. 

A  free  use  of  sweeping  generalizations,  vio- 
lently juxtaposed  contradictions,  and  a  very  de- 


A  PRELIMINARY  VIEW  7 

bauch  of  superlatives  further  complicate  mat- 
ters. He  makes  his  points  effective,  sets  them 
forth  in  a  high  light,  in  this  fashion.  One  might 
be  tempted  to  call  it  a  linguistic,  not  a  mental 
habit,  were  it  not  for  the  obvious  fact  that  it  is 
all  temperamental,  too;  Shaw's  cool,  reflective, 
analytic  type  of  mind  when  once  it  gets  tangled 
with  words  in  the  expression  of  thought,  acquires 
a  heat  which  is  the  result  of  a  characteristic 
state  of  his  emotions.  He  feels  keenly,  and  his  \ 
feelings,  when  he  is  warmed  to  his  topic,  color  all  I 
his  conclusions.  Striving  to  be  objective,  he 
really  becomes  a  superb  example  of  impression- 
ism, and  is  all  the  more  effective  as  a  pleader  be- 
cause of  it.  The  word  pleader,  or  advocate,  is 
apt;  Shaw  is  a  great  pleader,  often  a  special 
pleader,  as  were  Carlyle  and  Ruskin,  and  his 
eloquence,  like  theirs,  will  last  even  if  in  due  time 
his  views,  like  theirs,  are  discredited.  The  im- 
pact of  his  feeling  has  behind  it  a  tremendously  I 
impelling  moral  force.  The  blend  of  these  two 
qualities,  expressional  gift  and  moral  suasion,  ' 
makes  him  the  reformer  he  is. 

With  the  eccentricities  of  thought  and  expres-1 
sion  conceded,  it  is  much  the  easiest  way  to  call  I 


8  BERNARD  SHAW 

Shaw  a  crack-brained  enthusiast  or  a  smart 
notoriety  hunter,  (as  one  might  describe  a  Ger- 
trude Stein),  and  so  dismiss  him.  This  is  very 
much  what  the  many  do.  Cryptic  sayings  and 
intellectual  somersaults  are  not  for  the  lovers 
of  the  trite  and  the  obvious.  These  may  be  re- 
minded that  writers  exist — to  mention  names 
were  invidious — who  supply  their  needs.  Why 
lug  in  Shaw? — to  paraphrase  Whistler. 

It  is  a  pity  to  confuse  the  sound  estimate  of 
such  a  man  in  his  representative  work  with 
merely  temporary  prejudices.  Just  now,  Shaw 
is  persona  non  grata  because  of  his  diatribe  on 
the  war.  Whether  this  deliverance  be  wise  or 
foolish,  it  is  a  query  which  does  not  affect  his 
place  as  a  writer  of  drama  by  one  jot  or  tittle. 
Such  questions  loom  large  for  the  moment,  but  in 
the  end  are  seen  to  be  foolishly  ephemeral.  Only 
the  things  of  the  mind  remain  in  the  long  run; 
they  will  be  present  and  important  after  war  and 
the  rumors  of  war  have  died  away.  One  heard,  a 
few  months  ago,  that,  owing  to  public  feeling, 
and  in  high  dudgeon  on  account  of  it,  Shaw  had 
declared  he  would  write  no  more  plays.  Yet,  re- 
cently,  his   latest   drama,   to   wit,   "  O'Flaherty, 


A  PRELIMINARY  VIEW  9 

V.  C,"  is  announced  in  Dublin.  One  may,  if  one  so 
wishes,  assume  with  Mr.  Wells  that  the  playwright 
is  demolished;  or  one  may  receive  from  the  pious 
hands  of  Mr.  John  Palmer  the  epitaph  of  the 
once  popular  maker  of  intellectual  drama.  Itt 
were  the  part  of  saner  criticism  to  reflect  that 
these  little  flurries  never  affect  the  lasting  repu- 
tation of  authors  who  really  matter,  which  this 
one  indubitably  does.  Even  when  questions  of 
character  and  conduct  are  involved — which,  so 
far  as  morality  is  concerned,  is  not  the  case  here, 
— nothing  is  surer  than  that  in  the  end  every 
writer  is  judged  by  his  best  work  and  by  nothing 
else.  The  regrettable  acts  of  our  Byrons,  Vil- 
lous, Poes,  Verlaines,  Rousseaus,  and  Wildes  do 
not  alter  by  a  hair's  breadth  the  final  favorable 
verdict  upon  their  writings.  The  tranquil  desic- 
cation of  dust  takes  care  of  all  that.  Shaw's 
attitude  toward  the  war  is  not  a  popular  one; 
it  took  courage  to  state  his  opinion,  a  quality  he 
has  never  lacked.  His  view  may  be  foolish, 
hasty,  ill-judged,  in  bad  taste;  that  it  is  un- 
patriotic is  debatable,  and  depends  upon  your 
definition  of  patriotism.  But,  aside  from  all  this, 
the  main  pomt  is  that  Shaw  is  still  the  author  of 


10  BERNARD  SHAW 

"  Candida,"  "  Man  and  Superman,"  "  Mrs.  War- 
ren's Profession,"  and  sundry  other  plays — with 
their  Prefaces;  and  the  value  whereof  is  just 
what  it  was  before  the  war  and  will  remain  of 
exactly  the  same  importance  when,  war  being 
over,  the  people  settle  down  to  the  long  agony  of 
paying  the  bills  and  mourning  their  dead.  The 
war,  as  part  of  its  general  myopic  mist,  has  had 
a  tendency  to  obscure  straight  seeing  and 
straight  judging.  Shaw  will  survive  it,  like  the 
rest  of  us,  (unless  we  are  killed),  and  although 
apparently  damaged,  will  eventually  suffer  less 
than  most  of  the  participants. 

The  mind  simply  balks  at  the  picture  of  Ber- 
nard Shaw  quitting  before  he  is  sixty,  because  of 
public  execration  begotten  of  his  exercise  of  com- 
mon sense  (as  he  calls  it)  concerning  the  present 
struggle. 

To  peruse  patiently,  assimilatively,  so  volumi- 
nous a  writer  of  fiction,  essay  and  drama,  by 
which  process  alone  the  earnest  social  thinker 
and  fine  craftsman  of  the  theatre  can  be  found, 
is  more  than  a  May-day  pastime.  Yet  by  no 
other  road  can  the  true  Bernard  Shaw  be  met. 
He   has   deliberately   chosen   the   theatre   as   the 


A  PRELIMINARY  VIEW  11 

best  mode  through  which  to  get  a  hearing,  be- 
lieving it  to  be  "  the  most  seductive  form  of  the 
fine  arts " ;  and  hence  the  best  medium  for  -^ 
propaganda.  Accept  this  serious  aim,  concede  a 
method  that  is  the  only  one  possible  for  his  per- 
sonality, assume  that  he  not  only  talks  brilliantly  ; 
but  has  something  worth  while  to  say,  and  the 
good  that  is  in  him  will  become  ours.  The  as-  ! 
sumption  of  seriousness  is  the  fundamental  pre- 
requisite to  an  understanding.  Above  all,  must 
the  silly  and  peculiarly  Anglo-Saxon  mistake  be 
avoided  of  supposing  that  a  wit-thinker  is  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms,  that  fun  and  philosophy 
cannot  keep  house  together.  The  French  have 
Rabelais  and  know  better,  the  Germans  have 
Heine  and  Richter ;  perhaps  some  day  the  Ameri- 
cans will  recall  Mark  Twain,  the  British,  Shaw, 
and  both  nations  have  learned  the  lesson.  At 
present,  to  be  deep  and  not  dull,  weighty  and  not 
heavy,  is  to  be  a  mental  suspect. 

In  the  critical  treatment  of  Shaw  up  to  the 
present  time,  emphasis  has  been  laid,  upon  the 
whole,  too  much  upon  Shaw  the  thinker,  at  the 
expense  of  Shaw  the  artist.  Important  as  an 
intellectual  arouser  he  certainly  is,  but  equally 


12  BERNARD  SHAW 

true  is  it  that  he  is  a  fine  artist  of  the  theatre 
and  the  tendency  to  minimize  or  deny  his 
skill  and  overlook  his  significance  in  the  modern 
development  of  the  playhouse  on  its  technical 
side  is  to  be  deplored.  Too  often  in  dealing  with 
Shaw,  has  it  been  assumed  that  he  has  won  his 
way  to  a  foremost  position  in  the  contemporary 
theatre  through  sheer  power  of  thought  and 
originality  of  manner,  breaking  the  rules  and  suc- 
ceeding in  spite  of  a  lack  of  craftsmanship,  as 
Brieux  in  France  has  done  with  late  dramas  like 
"  Maternity  "  and  "  Damaged  Goods."  Nothing 
is  further  from  the  truth.  Shaw  has  not  been 
careless  or  unaware  of  his  metier.  He  has  broad- 
ened the  rules,  as  the  creative  artist  seeking  a 
freer  self-expression  always  must,  and  the  study 
of  his  methods,  if  accompanied  with  some  ac- 
quaintance with  dramatic  technic  in  general,  will 
convince  the  student  of  this  fact. 

In  chapters  three  to  six,  in  which  I  have  ex- 
amined all  the  Shaw  pieces  in  chronologic  order, 
attention  has  been  directed  in  each  case  to 
the  way  in  which  results  have  been  obtained  by 
the  extension  of  sound  dramaturgic  principles  as 
applied  to  a  new  purpose,  and  a  consequent  un- 


A  PRELIMINARY  VIEW  13 

usualness  which  to  the  superficial  scrutiny  may 
appear  to  mean  an  inexpert  hand.  I  believe  it  is 
within  the  bounds  of  modesty  to  claim  that  the 
technical  elements  of  this  writer's  work  have  not 
hitherto  been  so  definitely  pointed  out.  The  view 
thus  presented  should  be  for  this  reason  a  more 
balanced,  rounded  one.  This  attention  to  the 
technic  of  the  individual  plays  is  further  ampli- 
fied in  chapter  nine,  wherein,  synthetically,  the 
work  is  studied  in  its  technical  aspects.  In 
the  chapters  which  sum  up  the  main  aspects  of  the 
dramatist's  work,  specific  points  made  in  the 
analysis  of  the  plays  are  again  used,  intention- 
ally. I  make  no  apology  for  this,  believing  it  to 
be  helpful. 

A  writer  is  to  be  found  in  his  work  and  esti- 
mated by  his  work.  But  a  knowledge  of  a  man's 
personality  in  his  deeds  and  days,  in  his  relation 
to  family,  city,  and  state,  helps  to  interpret  him 
when  we  seek  to  understand  his  meaning  as  an 
author.  Particularly  is  this  true  of  Bernard 
Shaw,  who  has  proved  so  baffling  to  many  as  play 
writer  and  social  thinker.  Therefore,  it  is  worth 
while  to  look  at  the  man  and  citizen  before  we 
take  up  the  dramatic  works  which  reflect — or,  as 


14  BERNARD  SHAW 

some   would    say,   distort, — his    position    toward 
life  and  human  society. 

But  this  thought  may  well  be  retained  as  a 
background  to  any  personal  consideration  of 
Shaw's  thought;  a  consideration  that  desires  to 
pass  over  and  beyond  the  personal  as  far  as  is 
possible,  and  see  the  truth  about  him  objectively, 
and  as  it  is.  It  may  be  that  the  loss  of  per- 
spective denied  to  a  critic  who  tries  to  see  a  con- 
temporary for  his  real  significance,  is  in  a  meas- 
ure made  up  for  by  that  warmth  of  contact  which 
is  not  always  to  be  regarded  as  a  misleading  de- 
flection. Any  judgment  which  lacks  the  ruddy 
verdict  of  the  heart  is  as  much  astray  as  that 
which  allows  itself  to  be  swept  away  by  that  emo- 
tion. A  certain  value  in  Shaw  can  already  be 
seen,  although  his  ultimate  place  must  be  later 
decided.  He  has  stimulated  men  broadly  into 
the  earnest  consideration  of  important  social 
questions.  He  is  a  wise  physician  who  performs 
upon  the  body  of  our  time  the  surgical  operation 
of  making  us  think;  and  who,  by  the  use  of 
the  anesthesia  of  art,  has  made  the  process 
pleasurable. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  MAN 

The  salient  facts  of  Shaw's  personal  career 
with  its  background  of  ancestry,  family,  early 
environment,  education,  and  subsequent  develop- 
ment are  so  well  known  that  one  can  be  succinct. 
Refraining  from  too  great  particularity,  I  shall 
give  main  stress  to  certain  significant  happen- 
ings for  their  value  in  throwing  light  upon  his 
character  and  views.  Doctor  Henderson,  Mr. 
McCabe,  and  other  biographers  have  spread  out 
the  general  story  for  our  scrutiny. 

George  Bernard  Shaw,  or  Bernard  Shaw  as 
the  world  has  come  to  call  him,  is  a  man  of  sixty 
years,  in  the  full  prime  of  his  intellectual  powers, 
although  likely  to  grow  in  mental  stature  during 
the  coming  decade.  His  family  can  be  described 
as  belonging  to  the  upper  middle  class  of  Prot- 
estant Irish,  small  gentry  whose  orientation 
about  a  baronet  of  distant  kin  has  furnished 
satiric  references  for  the  member  of  the  family 
whose  democracy  has  always  been  of  a  sort  to 

15 


16  BERNARD  SHAW 

get  the  irony  in  such  spectacles.  The  family  tree 
shows  that  to  call  the  Shaws  Celts  is  to  use  the 
word  in  the  usual  loose  way,  since  they  are  of  an 
English  and  Scotch  strain  which  settled  in  Ire- 
land in  the  seventeenth  century;  as  Mr.  McCabe 
puts  it,  "  they  were  Orange  aliens  in  Catholic 
Ireland."  Celt  is  a  generic  name  to  include  the 
Irish,  Scotch,  and  Welsh,  and  in  this  sense  the 
Shaws  were  dominantly  Celtic.  Irish  they  were 
not  in  the  deepest,  fullest  significance  of  the 
word.  Of  his  father,  first  a  small  government  of- 
ficial, then  an  unsuccessful  corn  merchant,  we 
get  an  uncomplimentary  picture  from  the  son; 
the  former  seems  to  have  been  an  example  of  a 
somewhat  ineffective,  rather  helpless  specimen  of 
the  lesser  gentry.  It  is  from  the  mother  that 
Shaw  derives,  so  far  as  he  is  to  be  explained  by 
his  immediate  parentage.  She  was  evidently  a 
woman  of  parts  and  strong  character ;  a  fine  musi- 
cian from  whom  he  got  his  knowledge  of  and  taste 
in  that  art ;  and  modern  in  the  way  in  which, 
when  the  family  fortunes  were  at  ebb  tide,  she 
was  able  to  go  out  into  the  world  and  by  her  tal- 
ents and  will-power  support  those  dependent 
upon  her;  as  well  as  later,  tide  over  her  gifted 


THE  MAN  17 

son  in  his  harsh  struggle  in  London  to  get  on 
his  feet  as  a  writer  and  thinker.  Shaw  would  ap- 
parently have  foundered  during  those  Grub 
Street  days  had  it  not  been  for  this  maternal 
backing;  and  he  has  handsomely  made  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  fact  in  print.  He  reports  that 
as  a  lad  he  was  not  supposed  to  play  with  the 
children  of  tradespeople;  which  sheds  light  upon 
his  family,  and  was  regarded  by  the  embryo 
rebel  and  democrat  as  an  education  in  snobbery. 
We  get  a  picture  of  him  as  an  imaginative,  prob- 
ing, restless  fellow,  who  disdained  dreary  chapel 
going,  and  found  his  consolation  in  the  compan- 
ionship of  his  mother  with  her  music.  School 
found  him  sceptic  and  left  him  contemptuous. 
With  characteristic  energy  he  said  of  it :  "  It  was 
the  most  completely  wasted  and  mischievous 
part  of  my  life."  But  he  read  books  worth 
while  in  an  eclectic  fashion ;  at  fifteen  his  educa- 
tion in  the  formal  sense  ceased.  But  music  at 
home,  the  National  Gallery  in  Dublin,  and  his 
private  commerce  with  literature  did  much  to 
develop  his  taste  and  powers.  It  is  interesting  to 
know  that  letters  at  this  time  attracted  him  less 
than  painting  and  music. 


18  BERNARD  SHAW 

I         Next,  we  see  him  in  the  office  of  a  land  agent; 

I  or  rather,  he  is  there,  but  hard  to  see,  for  Shaw 
as  a  business  man — or  boy — arouses  incredulity. 
Yet,  to  make  the  smile  ironic,  he  showed  excel- 
lent capacity  in  such  work,  then  and  always,  and 
those  who  deal  with  him  today  are  aware  of  it. 
He  is  that  unusual  combination,  a  literary  man 
of  genius  and  shrewd  man-of-affairs,  with  a 
practical  gift  for  the  details  of  committee  meet- 
ings and  public  social  work.  Here  is  one  of  his 
many  contradictions.  When  Mrs.  Shaw  removed 
to  London  to  prosecute  her  career  in  music, 
Bernard  and  his  father  lived  in  Dublin  lodgings 
for  several  years.  It  seems  to  have  been  an  irk- 
some period  for  the  son,  who,  as  solace,  was  read- 
ing the  scientists  and  formulating  his  political, 
social,  and  philosophic  views ;  a  witness  to  this 
was  his  letter  in  Public  Opinion  in  which  his  dis- 
gust at  the  methods  of  the  American  evangelists. 
Moody  and  Sankey,  was  expressed  with  such 
characteristic  vigor  as  to  lay  him  open  to  the 
charge  of  atheist.  At  the  age  of  twenty,  feeling 
j  that  self-preservation  demanded  a  wider  horizon, 
he  went  to  London  himself  (1876),  and  for  nine 
years  followed  letters  on  a  little  oatmeal;  with 


THE  MAN  19 

results  sardonically  described  by  the  would-be 
author,  who  states  that  the  entire  takings  of  his 
pen  were  six  pounds,  and  live  of  them  for  a  medi- 
cal advertisement !  He  was  a  very  shabby  genteel 
figure  during  these  years;  which  nevertheless 
meant  fruitful  growth,  enlarging  experience.  He 
appeared  now  and  then  in  minor  publications  and 
produced  his  first  piece  of  fiction,  concerning 
which  Shaw  remarks  that  the  edition,  having  no 
sale,  had  been  stored  away  and  partially  eaten  by 
mice ;  "  but  even  they  have  been  unable  to  finish 
it." 

He  was  in  the  way  of  meeting  persons  of  in- 
tellectual and  esthetic  tastes  and  accomplish- 
ments ;  he  lectured  briefly  for  the  Edison  Tele- 
phone Company,  assimiliated  Spencer,  Darwin, 
and  Huxley,  joined  the  Zeletical  Society,  an  or- 
ganization whose  chief  business  in  the  eighteen- 
eighties  was  to  attack  the  Christian  doctrines ; 
frequented  all  sorts  of  radical  hole-and-corner 
meetings,  where  his  own  sort  naturally  foregath- 
ered; and  was  always  by  report  a  shabby, 
piquant,  arresting  figure,  eagerly  earnest  to  dis- 
cuss the  universe,  and  gradually  training  himself 
by  these  practices  to  be  one  of  the  most  effective 


20  BERNARD  SHAW 

platform  men  of  liis  day  in  England.  One  gets 
a  clear  vision  of  G.  B.  S.  in  these  days,  harangu- 
ing a  Sunday  morning  mob  from  the  tail  end  of 
a  cart  in  Hyde  Park.  He  heard  Henry  George 
lecture  one  night,  and  the  American  gave  him  a 
definite  impulse  towards  social  problems  in  con- 
trast with  the  theoretic  and  intellectual  prob- 
lems which  philosophical  socialism  is  wont  to 
thresh  out.  Shaw  declares  that  George  was  a 
turning  point  in  his  career;  though  the  single 
tax  panacea  did  not  entirely  satisfy  him  later. 
He  allied  himself  with  the  Land  Reform  Union 
and  became  acquainted  with  thinkers  like  Edward 
Carpenter,  Henry  Salt,  Sidney  Olivier,  Sidney 
Webb,  and  J.  L.  Joyne;  also  he  settled  into  those 
ascetic  habits  of  life  which  today  offer  us  the 
spectacle  of  one  whose  own  writings  are  taken  to 
plead  for  seemingly  lawless  irregularities,  leading 
a  life  of  well-nigh  monastic  regimen  and  absten- 
tion. Vegetarianism  was  adopted  and  has  been 
consistently  followed ;  a  habit  "  the  ravages  of 
which  his  robust  constitution,"  says  McCabe, 
"  has  admirably  resisted  for  years,"  a  somewhat 
naive  remark,  hardly  doing  justice  to  the  proba- 
bility that  this  dietary  predilection,  along  with  an 


THE  MAN  21 

avoidance  of  tobacco  and  all  liquors,  plays  an 
appreciable  part  in  the  peculiar  powers  of  Shaw. 
To  say  that  the  writer  whose  course  of  life  is  of 
this  character  is  exactly  the  one  to  handle  sex 
matters  with  the  Biblical  directness  and  boldness 
familiar  to  us  in  Shaw,  is  doubtless  to  expose 
oneself  to  ridicule;  nevertheless,  I  believe  the  sug- 
gestion has  much  to  support  it.  If  Shaw  ia-the 
plainest  spoken  of  dramatists  and  the  frankest, 
in  choice  of  themes,  he  is  at  the  same  time  the_ 
purest  minded.  And  to  deny  that  this  bears  no 
relation  to  his  unusual  purity  of  life  (using  the 
word  purity  in  no  silly,  restricted  sense)  seems  to 
me  absurd. 

It  is  both  difficult  and  unnecessary  to  bring 
the  Shaw  of  these  earlier  days  under  the  re- 
straint of  a  category  or  school.  He  was  an 
independent  and  eclectic  thinker,  particularly  in- 
terested by  nature  in  social  theories  of  reform.  ;^ 
An  essentially  sympathetic  nature  at  bottom,  de- 
spite all  contrary  appearances,  he  had  an  hon- 
esty and  openness  of  mind  which  led  him  to  object 
as  much  to  the  stern  application  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  as  to  the  convention- 
alities and  prettinesses  of  the  Christian  society 


22  BERNARD  SHAW 

which  surrounded  him.  To  be  en  rapport  with 
the  scientific  notions  of  his  day,  as  a  modern 
realistic  thinker,  he  must  have  accepted  in  its  full 
implications  the  evolutionary  doctrine.     But  the 

I  ethical  bias  and  the  odd  idealism  in  him  worked 
together  to  modify  or  oppose  this  view,  as  will 
be  further  seen  later  in  this  study,  when  we  come 
to  consider  his  religious  and  philosophic  position. 
His  special  involvement  in  socialism  was  but 
the  natural  flowering  out  of  his  general  rebellious 
attitude  towards  privilege,  capital,  and  things- 
as-they-are.  He  passed  from  George  to  the  Ger- 
man Marx,  with  his  theory  of  rent,  took  part  in 
the  debates  of  the  Social  Democratic  Federation, 
and  for  a  time  Marx's  theory  of  surplus  value  took 
the  place  with  him  before  occupied  by  George's 
single  tax  as  an  open  sesame  of  reform.  He 
sloughed  oif  earlier  views  as  he  lived  and  thought, 
with  the  courage  of  the  strong  man  aware  that 
consistency,  in  the  sense  of  dogged  retention  of 
opinion,  is  emphatically  not  a  jewel.  In  1884, 
the  Fabian  Society,  fhp  r^Tn^  ifsplf  snggpsfiN,;p  of 

*^  the  policy  of  making  haste  slowly,  was  formed. 
Shaw  became  one  of  its  leading  members,  and  has 
been  influential  in   the   organization   ever   since; 


THE  MAN  23 

his  best  essays  on  economic  subjects  have  ap- 
peared in  the  society's  publications.  His  tracts 
for  the  times  have  done  much  to  make  the 
Fabians  known  to  a  wider  public  than  would 
otherwise  be  secured.  In  its  original  purpose, 
The  Fabian  Society  was  an  emancipated,  middle- 
class  attempt  to  improve  social  conditions  by 
wiser  legislation.  Mr.  McCabe  gives  the  follow- 
ing propositions  as  illustrative  of  the  Fabian 
creed,  in  Shavian  form: 

"  That  a  life  interest  in  the  Land  and  Capi- 
tal of  the  nation  is  the  birthright  of  every  in- 
dividual ; 

"  That  the  state  should  compete  with  private 
individuals,  especially  with  parents — in  providing 
happy  homes  for  children,  so  that  every  child 
may  have  a  refuge  from  the  tyranny  or  neglect 
of  its  natural  custodians; 

"  That  the  established  government  has  no  more 
right  to  call  itself  the  State  than  the  smoke  of 
London  has  to  call  itself  the  weather." 

As  one  studies  this  phase  of  Shaw's  develop- 
ment and  belief,  and  quite  irrespective  of  one's 
acceptance  of  his  views,  the  impression  of  the 
vast  amount  of  laborious,  technical  writing  he  has 


24  BERNARD  SHAW 

done  in  this  special  field  comes  as  a  needed  cor- 
rective to  the  still  prevalent  notion,  which  sees 
him  as  a  sort  of  mental  butterfly  spreading  epi- 
grams along  the  social  parterres.  It  may  be 
added  that  a  course  in  the  Fabian  Essays,  sup- 
plemented by  a  reading  of  his  fiction,  especially 
"  The  Unsocial  Socialist  "  and  "  The  Irrational 
Knot,"  will  give  a  good  idea  of  a  side  of  Shaw 
very  likely  to  be  overlooked  by  those  who  confine 
themselves  to  the  plays, — and  probably  to  a  few 
of  them  only.  It  is  not  the  younger  Shaw  alone 
we  discover,  feeling  his  way  to  a  formulation  of 
his  opinions,  but  a  man  fiercely  in  earnest  and 
proving  it  by  the  kind  of  thankless  work  he  does. 
As  vestryman  and  borough  councilor  later  in  his 
career  he  has  shown  his  eager  willingness  to  do 
his  share  in  obscure  social  service.  He  refused 
to  stand  for  Parliament  and  in  his  letter  of  decli- 
nation declared  that  he  was  too  poor  a  man  to 
meet  the  expenses  involved — a  novel  reason  which 
had  behind  it  a  keen  sense  of  social  obligation. 

The  3^ear  1885  was  of  moment  in  his  career, 
because  he  then  made  the  acquaintance  of  Wil- 
liam Archer,  and  that  accomplished  critic  of  the 
drama,   then   a   fellow   socialist,   induced  him   to 


THE  MAN  25 

leave  novel  writing,  disastrous  in  the  practical 
results,  and  turn  to  criticism.  For  several  years 
thereafter  he  was  doing  those  pungent  little 
papers  for  The  Saturday  Review  on  music,  art, 
and,  later,  drama,  which  made  him  recognized 
as  a  brilliant  iconoclast  of  the  pen.  Particularly 
was  the  meeting  and  its  result  of  significance 
because  it  associated  him  with  dramatic  criticism, 
and  prepared  him  for  play-writing.  It  is  il- 
luminating to  see  how  often  the  future  play- 
wright is  conducted  to  his  metier  by  this  path. 
Those  criticisms  of  Shaw,  now  to  be  enjoyed 
in  two  portly  volumes,  are  proof  enough  of  his 
solid  grounding  in  the  basic  principles  of  the 
craft.  And  they  are  plainly  to  be  seen  now  as 
the  most  original,  pioneer  work  of  the  time  in 
this  department  of  letters. 

It  was  Archer,  moreover,  who  directly  insti- 
gated the  play-writing.  He  suggested  a  play  in 
collaboration,  a  free  treatment  of  the  Rhinegold 
motive.  Wagner  was  to  be  used  for  purposes 
of  socialistic  application.  Two  acts  were  written 
and  laid  aside.  Finally,  Shaw,  who  at  the  time 
was  writing  of  art  and  was  giving  more  attention 
to  the  stage  because  of  his  dramatic  reviewing, 


26  BERNARD  SHAW 

was  pricked  anew  into  an  attempt  to  dress  up  the 
abandoned  socialistic  play  by  his  interest  in 
Grein's  Independent  Theatre  movement,  at  that 
time  sorely  in  need  of  material  from  English 
hands.  The  result  was  "  Widowers'  Houses,"  the 
first  of  the  plays  dubbed  by  him  "  pleasant  and 
unpleasant ;  "  and  whatever  its  defects,  a  plain 
notification  that  a  man  to  reckon  with  had 
stepped  into  the  English  theatre.  It  was  the  first 
gun  in  the  long  warfare  in  which,  as  he  put  it,  he 
fought  the  drama  with  plays ;  in  other  words,  op- 
posed current  trash  with  that  which  appealed  to 
brains,  taste,  and  conscience,  the  intellectual 
theatre  for  which  he,  above  all  others  in  England, 
was  to  stand.  This  play-writing  was  to  have  a 
period  of  obscurity  both  as  book  literature  and 
still  more  as  stage  product,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  opening  chapter.  The  Independent  Theatre 
appealed  but  to  the  cognoscenti,  who  were  then 
fewer  even  than  they  are  now;  the  performances 
at  this  pioneer  venture  in  the  theatre  of  intelli- 
gence were  at  the  best  only  a  succes  d'estime. 
"  Widowers'  Houses "  will  be  examined  along 
with  the  other  pieces  at  the  proper  place;  here 
it  is  sufficient  to  register  the  interesting  way  in 


THE  MAN  27 

which  Shaw  was  deflected  from  criticism  and  fic- 
tion to  the  stage.  The  Preface  to  the  play  tells 
the  circumstances  as  he  alone  can. 

The  personal  history  of  Bernard  Shaw  from 
the  inception  of  play-writing  in  1892  to  the  pres- 
ent day — a  period  of  well-nigh  a  quarter  cen- 
tury— becomes  in  the  main  an  account  of  his 
early  rejection  by  contemporary  judgment; 
the  slow,  grudging  acceptance  as  his  work  forced 
itself  into  critical  and,  later,  general,  attention; 
with  the  change  to  a  vogue  eager,  even  avid,  be- 
ginning with  the  success  of  "  Candida  "  in  1903 ; 
a  vogue  carrying  with  it  obvious  dangers  of 
wrong  emphasis,  hasty  generalization,  and  misap- 
preciation.  In  a  sense,  Shaw  is  just  the  author 
to  suffer  in  the  house  of  his  seeming  friends.  But 
it  is  accurate  to  say  that  for  about  fifteen  years 
he  has  steadily  gained  not  only  in  notoriety  but 
in  fame  in  the  more  solid  meaning  of  the  word; 
his  dramas  are  more  frequently  played  in  various 
lands,  their  financial  value  has  been  enhanced, 
and  a  new  piece  by  this  author  is  an  event  of  mo- 
ment in  stage  art,  whether  the  city  be  Berlin, 
London,  or  New  York.  Abroad,  no  man  save 
Shakspere  is  more  frequently  in  the  repertory  of 


28  BERNARD  SHAW 

serious  playhouses.  Decidedly,  strikingly,  he  has 
arrived  in  the  worldly  recognition  of  his  talents. 
Fame  and  fortune  are  his,  and  the  bizarre  early 
figure,  lean  and  unconventionally  picturesque,  be- 
gins to  look  a  la  mode.  It  is  the  period  of  test, 
lest  peradventure  the  rebel  paradoxer  wax  sleek 
and  debonair.  But  no  such  result  is  appar- 
ent at  the  present  time.  If  Shaw  now  seem  con- 
servative, it  must  be  the  change  in  latter-day 
opinion,  rather  than  in  him.  He  is  still  the 
writer  who  earlier  startled  us  with  his  social  re- 
bellion. Indeed,  a  study  of  his  work  in  its  evo- 
lution will  bear  out  the  statement  that  he  is  at 
fifty-five  to  sixty  more  progressive,  more  radical, 
than  in  earlier  teaching.  No  more  advanced 
thinking  can  be  found  in  the  entire  range  of  his 
writings  than  the  Preface  to  "  Getting  Married," 
and  that  to  "  Androcles  and  the  Lion." 

But  for  the  proper  perspective,  as  we  con- 
front the  somewhat  formidable  spectacle  of  Ber- 
nard Shaw,  still  wearing  the  mask  perhaps,  but 
at  least  having  conquered  the  Philistine  who  kept 
him  out  of  the  Promised  Land  of  success,  it  is 
highly  necessary  to  continue  to  see  the  man  of 
the    eighties:    obscure    fictionist,    debater,    social 


THE  MAN  29 

worker,  vestryman,  and  borough  councilor,  shabby 
pubHcist,  and  grubber  in  municipal  details  both 
dull  and  unimportant  to  the  many  who  laugh 
over  his  dramatic  scintillations. 

When  he  was  ill  and  out  at  elbows,  he  married 
Miss  Charlotte  Frances  Payne-Townshend,  and 
his  own  account  of  it  is  so  richly  humorous  that 
it  were  a  sin  not  to  reproduce  it  here: 

"  I  was  very  ill  when  I  was  married,  altogether 
a  wreck  on  crutches  and  in  an  old  jacket  which 
the  crutch  had  worn  to  rags.  I  had  asked  my 
friends,  Mr.  Graham  Wallas,  of  the  London 
School  Board,  and  Mr.  Henry  Salt,  the  biog- 
rapher of  Shelley  and  De  Quincey,  to  act  as  wit- 
nesses, and  of  course,  in  honor  of  the  occasion 
they  were  dressed  in  their  best  clothes.  The 
register  never  imagined  I  could  possibly  be  the 
bridegroom;  they  took  me  for  the  inevitable  beg- 
gar who  completes  all  wedding  processions. 
Wallas,  who  is  considerably  over  six  feet  high, 
seemed  to  him  to  be  the  hero  of  the  occasion  and 
he  was  proceeding  calmly  to  marry  him  to  my 
betrothed,  when  Wallas,  thinking  the  formula 
rather  strong  for  a  mere  witness,  hesitated  at 
the  last  moment  and  left  the  prize  to  me." 


so  BERNARD  SHAW 

That  nothing  is  known  or  mooted  of  Shaw's 
family  life,  in  the  case  of  a  man  who  is  the 
natural  prey  of  the  newsmongers,  is  the  best  com- 
ment upon  its  character,  and  a  final  compliment; 
no  more  concerning  it  is  called  for. 

It  would  seem  as  if  Bernard  Shaw  at  sixty  had 
some  of  his  best  years  ahead  of  him  as  dramatist, 
thinker,  social  influence.  He  is  much  in  demand 
at  gatherings  where  vital  topics  of  the  day  are 
discussed,  and  the  very  fact  that  he  is  a  man  of 
place  and  property  gives  him  a  better  chance 
perhaps  to  cope  with  the  Philistine;  the  latter 
is  more  likely  to  listen  to  one  who  is  no  longer 
the  shabby  buffoon,  but  the  favored  social  figure. 
He  does  not  strike  one  as  of  the  type  which 
shoots  its  shaft  early,  or  is  likely  to  be  spoiled 
by  worldly  favor.  Were  he  through  as  a  writer 
today,  the  plays,  some  thirty  of  them,  are  his 
testament.  But  one  imagines  that  the  coming 
years,  let  us  say  the  decade  from  sixty  to  sev- 
enty, will  bring  some  highly  characteristic  con- 
tributions from  his  study  in  Adelphi  Terrace  or 
his  country  place  at  Ayot  St.  Lawrence.  There 
is  something  peculiarly  stimulating  in  the 
thought  of  Bernard  Shaw  passing  from  elderly 


THE  MAN  31 

to  old;  I  believe  age  will  help  him  to  be  taken 
seriously,  not  because  he  will  be  more  serious,  but 
because  even  the  light-minded  may  then  perceive, 
aided  by  such  marginal  notes  as  Time  adds,  the 
essential  quality  of  the  man.  And  it  will  be  saidj 
of  him  then,  as  it  can  be  said  now,  though  it  is' 
less  likely  to  be,  that  he  offers  the  spectacle  of  a 
good  citizen,  trying  to  leave  a  better  social  con- 
dition than  he  found;,  and  in  this  like  unto  Car- 
lyle,  Ruskin,  William  Morris.  He  has  said  that 
he  deemed  his  life  belonged  to  the  community,  and 
he  has  lived  up  to  that  pronunciamento.  In  re- 
fusing a  newspaper  interview,  George  Meredith 
declared  that  the  public  had  no  right  to  his  pri- 
vate affairs,  except  that  he  "  be  reputedly  a  good 
citizen."  This  has  also  been  Shaw's  attitude, 
however  much  his  career,  superficially  regarded, 
may  appear  to  differ  from  the  Box  Hill  magician. 
Privately,  he  has  preserved  the  obscurity  of  good 
taste:  publicly,  he  has  done  all  in  his  power  to 
exploit  himself  for  the  sake  of  his  message.  The 
Fabian  essayist  as  such,  could  never  win  a  gen- 
eral audience :  the  author  of  "Candida,"  "  Fanny's 
First  Play,"  and  the  Prefaces  could! 

The  Shaw  of  the  early  essays,  the  fiction  and 


32  BERNARD  SHAW 

the  novels,  he  of  Hyde  Park  meetings  and  radi- 
cal society  debatings,  is  not  quite  the  Shaw  of 
1916;  there  would  inevitably  be  some  change  in 
the  growth  of  a  mind  worth  talking  about.  But 
while  there  has  been  a  redistribution  of  emphasis 
upon  some  of  his  convictions,  a  sloughing  off  of 
some  of  his  first  espousals  of  theory,  and  from 
time  to  time,  these  later  years,  a  definite  willing- 
ness to  indulge  a  mood  of  irresponsible  sportive- 
ness,  on  the  whole  we  are  presented  today  with 
the  same  G.  B.  S.,  save  that  the  central  social 
interest  is  deepened,  and  the  articles  of  his  credo 
are  more  clearly  correlated,  so  as  to  produce  an 
effect  of  unified  social  vision.  Emphatically,  this 
is  not  a  thinker  who,  with  the  advance  to  full  in- 
tellectual maturity,  has  either  wearied  of  well 
doing,  or,  disappointed  with  his  work  and  its  re- 
ception, like  Ibsen  in  "  When  We  Dead  Awaken," 
fallen  back  upon  sad  autobiography  and  no 
longer  strives  militantly  to  preach  his  gospel. 
Militant  is  just  the  word  to  use  in  describing 
Shaw  as  person  and  as  social  power;  he  is  flam- 
ingly  militant  and  never  more  so  than  now,  albeit 
he  has  attained  to  an  age  and  reached  a  position 
of    influence    which,    broadly    speaking,    have    a 


THE  MAN  33 

marked  tendency  to  quench  individualism, — so 
often  an  uncomfortable  kicker  against  the  pricks. 
And  so  Shaw's  life  offers  us  another  of  the 
paradoxes  which  make  up  his  portrait  for  the 
world:  a  man  who  has  come  to  the  conservatism 
of  years  and  success,  but  remains  hotly  a  radical ; 
a  man  who  seems  obstreperously  forward  in  self- 
exploitation,  and  yet  is  in  private  life  modestly  a 
gentleman  shrinking  from  any  undue  obtruding 
of  his  personal  history.  Shaw's  name  will  to  the 
end  of  the  chapter  be  provocative  of  irritation  to 
many;  it  will  beget  opposition  and  dislike,  as  a 
matter  of  course.  But  it  is  perfectly  safe  to  say 
that  no  one  who  takes  the  trouble  to  see  his  life 
as  it  is,  and  to  read  his  writings  sufficiently  to 
get  the  coordination  of  his  teaching,  will  ever 
make  the  mistake  of  denying  to  this  austere 
Puritan  in  disguise  of  playmaker  a  character  far 
above  unworthy  ambition,  insincerity,  or  any 
taint  of  violating  the  dictates  of  conscience  for 
the  sake  of  worldly  gain.  The  man  behind  the 
mask  is  a  very  real  and  honest  and  high-aiming 
man,  if  once  the  mask  be  removed. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  PLAYS 

**  WIDOWERS'  HOUSES"  TO  *'ARMS 
AND  THE  MAN" 

It  will  be  an  aid  to  the  proper  understanding 
of  Shaw,  if  from  the  first  we  distinguish  between 
his  matter  and  his  manner.  The  proof  of  his 
genuineness  as  thinker  and  writer  lies  in  an  open- 
minded  examination  of  his  works,  approaching 
them  with  a  fortifying  comprehension  of  his  per- 
sonality and  private  history;  also,  as  especially 
important,  with  a  clear-eyed  realization  of  cer- 
tain peculiarities  in  his  way  of  conveying  his 
message.  These  idiosyncrasies  involve  method 
and  style,  and  must  be  accepted  as  the  condition 
of  a  right  relation  between  him  and  us. 

The  danger,  at  least  in  Anglo-Saxon  lands,  of 
mixing  fun  and  philosophy  has  been  already  re- 
ferred to:  as  well  try  to  blend  oil  and  water. 
Yet  has  Bernard  Shaw  boldly  chosen,  and  at  his 
peril,   to   jest   while   serious,   to   be   serious,    al- 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  PLAYS      -  35 

though  jesting.  That  he  has  confused,  pained, 
dazzled  not  a  few  by  such  a  procedure,  cannot  be 
doubted;  the  proofs  are  all  about  us. 

And  as  part  of  this  danger,  Shaw  elected  to 
use  a  form,  the  play,  traditionally  associated 
with  entertainment,  dedicate  to  frivolous  themes 
and  moods.  When  a  man  seizes  upon  the  drama 
as  a  vehicle  for  instruction,  while  he  is  only  re- 
verting to  first  principles  of  English  drama,  and 
indeed,  of  all  drama,  the  trouble  may  be  trusted 
to  begin.  The  majority  is  sure  to  chant  in 
plaintive  chorus :  "  We  don't  want  to  be  taught, 
to  be  made  to  think  in  the  playhouse:  we  want 
to  be  amused.  There  is  thinking  enough,  and  un- 
pleasantness enough  in  life,"  a  wail  that  rivals 
in  hoary  antiquity  that  other  pathetic  protest  of 
the  Philistine,  "  I  know  what  I  like !  "  Shaw  be- 
gan play-writing  confronted  by  the  historical 
attitude  which  declares  that  the  playhouse  is  a 
secular  indulgence;  it  belongs  to  a  Saturday 
afternoon,  and  Sunday  is  just  ahead  when  we  can 
put  on  sober  clothes  of  repentance,  purge,  leave 
sack,  and  live  cleanly.  And  he  met  it  by  suf- 
ficiently hiding  his  seriousness  within  a  frame- 
work of  interesting  fable  and  then  so  spicing  his 


36  BERNARD  SHAW 

sermon  with  condiments  of  wit  and  satire  and 
comic  scene  and  character,  that  the  pleasure  of 
the  playhouse  was  preserved  even  for  the  light- 
minded,  and  the  mourners  became  like  unto  those 
who  rejoice.  It  has  been  a  happy  spectacle,  this 
bouleversement  of  theatre-goers,  and  has  added 
to  the  gaiety  of  nations. 

But  the  distinction  between  matter  and  man- 
ner goes  deeper.  Let  a  suggestion  already  made 
be  here  expanded.  One  must  agree  to  accept  the 
underlying  sanit}^  of  a  writer  who  steadily,  per- 
sistently, it  would  almost  seem,  perversely,  uses 
the  method  of  exaggeration  to  make  his  points 
stick  out;  and  who,  once  under  way  and  exacer- 
bated before  the  images  of  crass  stupidity  whom 
as  men  of  straw  he  sets  up  for  attack,  cannot 
for  the  life  of  him  refrain  from  anger;  a  surface 
irritation  growing  on  occasion  into  a  thorough- 
going indignation  that  seizes  the  whole  man.  It 
is  a  generous,  a  noble  rage,  this  of  Bernard 
Shaw,  against  the  social  folly  of  his  time, 
against  the  makers  thereof  and  all  their  works. 
So  forthright  and  sincere  is  it,  that  we  must 
grant  such  a  mind  its  way  of  warfare,  and  know 
that  the  positive  degree  of  conviction  begets  the 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  PLAYS        37 

superlative  of  expression.  This  habit  of  ham- 
mering hard  at  the  thing  just  in  front  of  him 
makes  Shaw  of  all  men  the  one  most  dangerously 
liable  to  misrepresentation  when  detached  from 
the  particular  application  of  his  words  and  not 
squared  by  the  general  tenor  of  his  teaching. 
In  choosing  his  method,  he  runs  the  risk  of  this. 
His  thought  looks  to  totality  of  impression  and 
asks  on  our  part  sufficient  patience  and  compre- 
hension of  his  ideas  as  a  whole  to  act  as  correc- 
tive. And  this  is  just  what  few  readers,  and 
above  all  few  theatre-goers,  are  willing  or  able 
to  give;  all  such  prefer  the  isolated  smart  saying 
to  the  textual  meaning.  Sometimes,  a  similar 
mistake  has  been  made  with  Oscar  Wilde,  when 
critics  have  said  that  the  sole  value  of  "  Lady 
Windermere's  Fan,"  and  "  A  Woman  of  No  Im- 
portance," lay  in  their  clever  aphorisms  and  epi- 
grams, and  so  overlooked  the  constructive  dra- 
matic virtues  of  those  skilful  and  charming 
pieces. 

Shaw's  method  also  involves  that  use  of  gen- 
eralization that  is  effective  in  the  degree  that  it 
is  dangerous,  if  one  interpret  literally.  This  is 
more    than    manner,    of    course,    for    it    includes 


38  BERNARD  SHAW 

mental  processes,  but  is  also  rhetorical,  a  way 
of  securing  an  effect.  Almost  any  page  of 
Shaw's  illustrates  the  tendency.  It  is  a  very 
delicate  question  whether  an  element  of  wilfulness 
enters  into  this  method  of  overstatement.  Does 
Shaw,  recognizing  that  he  is  rated  as  a  chartered 
jester,  take  advantage  of  that  license  to  use  a 
manner  likely  to  mislead  those  whom  an  unkind 
fate  has  deprived  of  a  sense  of  humor?  I  think 
his  habit  of  putting  the  case  so  much  the 
stronger  by  the  omission  of  qualifiers,  is  con- 
genital ;  but  is  also  accepted  by  him  on  the  theory 
that  you  must  strike  hard  if  you  would  dint  num- 
skulls. It  is  a  way  of  making  yourself  heard  of 
those  who  are  hard  of  hearing.  Perhaps  the 
author  did  not  fully  realize  it  is  also  a  way  of 
producing  puzzle  in  many  minds.  The  compara- 
tive few  will  make  the  proper  concessions  and  al- 
lowances. The  essayist  can  take  up  his  subject, 
turn  it  about,  let  its  many  facets  flash  in  succes- 
sion before  us,  and  in  leisured  fashion  turn  it  in- 
side out  for  reflection  and  analysis.  The  phi- 
losopher can  balance  and  concede,  strive  for  a 
judicial  tone,  and  leave  you  in  a  broad-minded  un- 
certainty as  to  the  conclusion.     But  the  orator 


"WIDOWERS'  HOUSES"  39 

and  dramatist  both,  the  latter  being  an  orator  in 
this  respect,  must  be  partizan,  special  pleaders; 
must  strike  while  the  iron  is  hot;  they  substitute 
heat  for  light.  And  Shaw  in  his  dialectics  is  es- 
sentially the  orator,  the  rhetorician  (as  to 
method)  passionately  pleading,  seeing  but  the 
one  thing  at  the  moment,  and  moving  heaven 
and  earth  to  attain  his  end,  which  is,  convic- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  hearer.  This  is  the 
technic  of  conviction,  as  we  might  call  it.  What 
we  have  a  right  to  demand  of  the  orator  is  elo- 
quence and  honesty;  and  Shaw  has  them  in  full 
measure. 

With  this  precautionary  word,  we  may  take 
up  the  evidence  of  the  plays  themselves,  beginning 
with 

Widowers^  Houses 

Several  Shavian  qualities  are  exhibited  in  this 
interesting  if  tentative  piece.  It  can  easily  be 
understood  that  in  1892  it  would  not  succeed. 
Its  date  of  production,  December  9,  1892,  at 
The  Independent  Theatre,  London,  must  be  quali- 
fied by  the  knowledge  that  it  was  begun  (as  de- 
scribed) seven  years  earlier,  in  1885.     If  it  was 


40  BERNARD  SHAW 

in  advance  of  the  day  in  1892,  it  was  still  more 
ahead  of  the  time  when  conceived.  Reduced  to 
a  brutally  condensed  statement,  the  play  tells 
how  a  young  man,  loving  a  girl  and  winning  her, 
is  then  repelled  by  the  fact  that  her  father's 
money  is  gained  by  iniquitous  landlordism ;  at  first 
he  refuses  to  have  her,  but  finally,  through  sex- 
charm  and  also  because  he  finds  his  own  money 
is  involved  in  these  questionable  investments,  re- 
turns to  her:  a  sufficiently  cynical  conclusion. 
The  ending  is  "  pleasant  "  only  for  those  who  do 
not  think  and  prefer  to  have  the  curtain  go  down 
on  a  marriage  of  whatever  quality.  In  reality, 
there  is  a  sardonic  ring  to  it;  the  author's  at- 
titude, we  feel,  would  be  cynical,  except  that  he 
does  not  so  much  blame  Trench,  the  young  lover, 
in  his  acceptance  under  pressure  of  a  lower 
standard,  as  he  blames  us  all,  society  in  general. 
It  is  society,  Shaw  shows,  that  builds  up  a  ma- 
chine which  makes  possible  such  complications. 
The  criticism  is  not  so  much  of  human  nature  as 
of  the  social  complex  in  the  meshes  of  which  our 
weak  humanity  has  become  entangled. 

The  play,  compared  with  more  mature  work, 
seems  young  in  definite  particulars;   the   comic 


"WIDOWERS'  HOUSES"  41 

characters  are  sketchy  and  exaggerated  when 
set  beside  such  a  masterpiece,  for  example,  as 
William  the  waiter  in  "  You  Never  Can  Tell." 
The  sociological  fervor  is  obtruded  too  obviously, 
and  there  is  an  eifect  of  rounding  out  the  plot 
to  a  desired  conclusion,  the  reconciliation  of  the 
lovers  at  the  expense  of  logic  of  characteriza- 
tion; although,  as  I  have  noted,  it  is  possible  to 
argue  that  an  average  well-meaning  fellow  like 
Trench,  sensitive  to  the  good  but  unable  under 
temptation  to  live  up  to  his  ideals,  might  do 
exactly  what  he  does :  compromise.  Technically, 
the  handling  testifies  in  some  ways  to  the  date  of 
composition,  since  it  shows  conventions  since  out- 
grown ;  both  soliloquy  and  aside  are  used,  though 
not  freely. 

But  in  many  respects  this  drama  has  the 
author's  earmarks,  and  announces  a  new  man  in 
the  British  theatre.  We  have  the  device  of 
elaborate  stage  directions  and  character  delinea- 
tions, addressed  not  only  to  the  reader,  but,  with 
Shaw,  to  the  intelligent  actor,  or  stage  manager, 
as  well;  no  others  need  apply!  We  have  the 
Preface,  in  its  less  expanded  form,  which  was  to 
become  in  the  works  in  general  such  a  weapon, 


42  BERNARD  SHAW 

and  such  a  delightful  and  illuminating  addition 
to  the  text  itself.  We  have  a  keen  sense  of 
scene  as  such,  vivid  characterization  with  a  feel- 
ing for  contrasts,  and  a  dialogue  which,  looking 
to  Ibsen  for  a  realistic  model,  is  in  no  respects 
behind  him  for  verisimilitude,  vigor,  and  variety. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  such  dialogue  had  ap- 
peared in  the  English  theatre  since  Congreve. 
For  its  earnest,  satiric  purpose,  with  the  relief 
of  scintillant  wit  and  atmospheric  humor,  it  is 
unsurpassed.  The  frequent  statement  that  all 
Shaw's  stage  folk  talk  Shavian  language  is  flatly 
contradicted  by  a  delightful  comic  personage 
like  Lickcheese,  whose  name,  by  the  way,  sug- 
gests that  when  the  author  began  dramatic  writ- 
ing, he  was  willing  to  do  what  later  he  would 
have  eschewed:  place  descriptive  type  names 
upon  his  stage  creatures.  On  the  side  of  struc- 
ture, it  is  worth  observing  that,  like  Ibsen,  Shaw 
avoids  mere  curtain  effects,  yet  has  the  instinct 
of  the  true  dramatist  for  heightened  and  sus- 
pensive moments ;  the  end  of  the  second  act  is  an 
illustration.  This  is  the  French  feeling  for 
coups  de  theatre,  with  an  added  ease  and  natural- 
ness in  reproducing  life.     There  is  also  genuine 


"  WIDOWERS*  HOUSES  "  43 

progress  to  a  climax,  whether  the  piece  be  re- 
garded as  a  love  story  or  social  thesis.  In  the 
former  case,  the  diagram  reads:  Act  I,  engage- 
ment; Act  II,  engagement  broken;  Act  III,  mak- 
ing it  up.  On  the  other  supposition,  we  have: 
Act  I,  a  young  man  innocent  of  social  rottenness ; 
Act  II,  disillusion;  Act  III,  acceptance  of  lower 
standards. 

The  outstanding  feature  of  "  Widowers' 
Houses,"  however,  is  its  theme,  its  note  of  social 
protest.  It  is  story  and  character  study  for  the 
sake  of  drawing  attention  to  the  evils  of  slum 
landlordism  and  to  the  fact  that  we  are  all  im- 
plicated in  it :  caught  in  the  social  web,  albeit  un- 
wittingly, and  our  brother's  keeper,  whether  we 
will  or  no.  If  the  details  of  story  are  trimmed 
to  the  thesis,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  wherein  the 
general  picture  is  not  in  drawing.  Many  re- 
spectable folk  do  have  investments  in  insanitary, 
ramshackle  tenements,  and  are  sometimes  loath 
to  tear  them  down  in  favor  of  better  buildings, 
when  so  doing  means  an  assault  upon  income. 
Or  what  is  more  probable,  such  seemly  people 
are  content  to  leave  the  dirty  work  to  those  em- 
ployed for   the  purpose,  without   inquiring  too 


44  BERNARD  SHAW 

curiously  into  the  minutise  of  the  proceedings; 
their  consciences  thus  being  preserved  from  con- 
viction of  sin.  And  there  would  seem  to  be  noth- 
ing improbable  in  the  spectacle  of  a  young  man 
who  has  reformatory  instincts  become  worldly- 
wise  when  not  only  his  pocket  is  tapped  but  the 
loss  of  his  girl  is  threatened.  It  is  all  one  of 
life's  little  ironies,  familiar  enough  to  the  ob- 
serving mind. 

The  treatment  of  love  in  the  play  and  the  con- 
ception of  woman  embodied  in  Blanche  are  also 
definitely  Shavian.  Shaw  cannot  abide  the  usual 
sentimental  depiction  of  the  passion  of  love.  He 
attacks  it  on  all  occasions.  I  do  not  recall  a 
seriously  tender  love  scene  in  the  conventional 
sense  in  all  his  dramas.  It  may  be  remarked 
parenthetically,  that  this  affords  a  striking 
proof  of  his  power  as  a  dramatist,  since  the  love 
motive  is  the  central  appeal  of  stage  stories,  as 
it  is  of  fiction  in  general.  The  Shavian  idea  is 
that  the  life-force  for  its  own  biologic  purposes 
provides  a  sex  glamour  which  hides  the  facts  and 
in  making  "  love  matches  "  by  the  million,  also 
makes  trouble  for  the  twain  and  for  society  at 
large.      He  would  have  men   and  women   realize 


"THE  PHILANDERER"  45 

what  they  really  are,  in  order  to  come  together 
in  mutual  respect  and  affection  as  comrades  who 
shall  build  homes  and  conserve  the  interests  of 
the  state.  In  "  Man  and  Superman,"  as  we  shall 
see,  he  laughs  at  his  own  counsel  of  perfection; 
as  Ibsen  in  "  The  Wild  Duck"  laughs  at  his 
own  idealism  wrongly  applied  or  embodied. 
Blanche  is  a  rather  unlovely  exemplar  of  the  life- 
force;  she  gets  her  man  and  ethical  principles 
can  go  hang.  She  is  her  father's  daughter.  It 
would  be  quite  unfair  to  name  Blanche  as  a  typi- 
cal  Shavian  woman.  She  is  simply  one  aspect, 
and  not  a  pleasing  one,  of  what  he  conceives  as 
the  truth  concerning  the  sexes. 

Altogether,  then,  "  Widowers'  Houses "  fur- 
nished proof  of  a  new  talent  in  the  British 
theatre,  and  contained  some  of  the  distinctive 
characteristics  of  the  writer,  while  not  without 
signs  of  being  journeyman  work. 

The  Philandered 

In  "The  Wild  Duck,"  as  stated,  Ibsen 
satirizes  the  misuse  of  his  own  idealism.  In 
"  The    Philanderer,"    Shaw's    next    play,   written 


46  BERNARD  SHAW 

in  1893,  and  like  its  predecessor  for  The  Inde- 
pendent Theatre,  but  not  produced  until  Febru- 
ary 5,  1907,  at  the  Court  Theatre,  London, 
Shaw  satirizes  the  situation  when  fools  and  fad- 
dists get  hold  of  the  Norwegian's  ideas  and  pro- 
cede  to  juggle  with  them  in  relation  to  their  own 
lives.  This  drama  has  never  been  one  of  the  pro- 
nounced Shaw  successes,  although  it  was  by  no 
means  a  failure  when  seen  in  New  York  and  Chi- 
cago. The  less  popular  early  pieces  of  Shaw, 
given  now  as  an  intelligent  theatre  audience  is 
fast  being  prepared  by  various  influences  at 
work,  play  far  better  than  they  did  at  the  time  of 
their  first  appearance.  Still,  there  is  a  quality 
in  this  play  which  makes  against  wide  accept- 
ance, and  it  has  definite  defects.  Primarily,  it 
seems  a  satire  on  Ibsen,  and  this  had  more 
pertinence  twenty-odd  years  ago  than  at  present. 
But  it  also  satirizes  certain  other  social  fal- 
lacies, which  are  favorite  objects  of  attack  with 
Shaw:  doctors  and  their  profession  in  general  (to 
be  amplified  in  "The  Doctor's  Dilemma"),  vivi- 
section in  particular,  and  the  current  laws  and 
conventions  of  marriage  (also  to  be  extended  in 
treatment  in  "Getting  Married").     Because  of 


"THE  PHILANDERER"  47 

these  imperfect  and  foolish  laws,  Shaw  is  of  the 
opinion  that  a  type  such  as  the  philanderer, 
Charteris,  becomes  a  frequent  phenomenon.  We 
notice  here  the  author's  sturdy  and  oft  reiterated 
faith  in  the  efficacy  of  legislation  to  improve 
upon  human  nature  as  it  acts  and  reacts  in  so- 
ciety and  the  state. 

Regarded  as  architecture,  this  dispersedness 
of  attack  tends  to  lessen  the  effect  of  unity  in 
the  play ;  as  a  story,  the  love  affairs  of  Charteris, 
though  amusing  enough,  are  not  of  sufficient 
strength,  especially  in  view  of  his  somewhat  un- 
sympathetic character,  to  justify  that  side  of 
the  appeal.  The  piece  carries  largely  by  reason 
of  its  incidental  fun,  and  its  cleverness  of  scene 
and  dialogue.  The  seriousness  of  purpose  is  in- 
jured by  a  levity  of  tone  which  has  an  effect  of 
being  for  its  own  sake.  Yet  a  playwright  of  ex- 
traordinary ability  is  plainly  indicated  in  such  a 
handling  of  situation  as  that  which  closes  the 
first  act,  or  in  much  of  the  dialogue,  illustrated 
by  this  speech  of  Charteris's : 

Charteris.  I  tell  you  seriously,  I'm  the 
matter.  Julia  wants  to  marry  me:  I  want 
to   marry    Grace.      Enter   Julia.      Alarums 


48  BERNARD  SHAW, 

and  excursions.  Exit  Grace.  Enter  you 
and  Craven.  Subterfuges  and  excuses. 
Exeunt  Craven  and  Julia.  And  here  we 
are.  That's  the  whole  story.  Sleep  over 
it.     Good  night.     (He  leaves). 

CuTHBERTSON  (stariug  after  him).    Well, 
I'll  be — (the  act  drop  descends). 
As  a  tour  de  force,  this  sends  one  back  to  the 
fifth  act  unraveling  in  "  Cymbeline." 

The  feeling  born,  rather  than  made,  for  theatre 
effects  can  be  detected  throughout  this  early 
piece  of  a  man,  all  of  whose  work  proves  the  gift. 
Witness  the  entrance  of  Julia  in  act  one,  which 
is  but  one  of  several  instances.  The  conduct- 
ment  of  the  Ibsen  talk  is  in  the  highest  degree 
an  example  of  keen  satiric  comedy,  with  sparkle 
and  palpable  hits  in  every  line.  For  1916,  per- 
haps the  most  interesting  thing  in  the  play  is  the 
contrasted  feminine  portraiture:  we  get  the 
woman  who  grabs  her  man — an  earlier  Ann — 
the  womanly  woman  who  waits  for  him,  and, 
God  save  the  mark,  the  masculine  woman  who  is 
neither  the  clinging  vine  nor  the  truculent  ama- 
zon  of  the  opposite  extreme.  You  can  respect 
the    woman    who    clings    as    the    exponent    of    a 


"  MRS.  WARREN'S  PROFESSION  "        49 

pleasant  tradition;  and  the  woman  who  conquers, 
for  she  helps  the  race  to  exist.  But  the  woman 
who  wobbles,  being  neither  Venus  nor  Lucina,  she 
is  an  unpalatable  joke.  So  far  as  he  shows  any 
bias,  Shaw's  sympathy  is  apparently  with  Grace, 
the  womanly  woman. 

Mrs,   Warren^s  Profession 

The  next  play  was  the  first  one  to  make  its 
author  a  popular  issue.  It  was  written  the  lat- 
ter part  of  1893,  for  The  Independent  Theatre, 
but  was  first  seen  at  The  New  Lyric  Club  in 
London,  January  5,  1902,  nearly  a  decade  later; 
proof  of  the  slow  winning  of  favor  by  Shaw  at 
this  time.  It  was  forbidden  by  the  Censor  in 
1893,  and  only  privately  given  in  London  at  the 
later  date;  was  stopped  by  the  police  both  in 
New  Haven  and  New  York,  when  it  was 
produced  in  America,  though  afterwards  per- 
mitted in  the  metropolis.  The  date  at  the 
Garrick  Theatre,  New  York,  was  October  30, 
1905.  It  has  always  been  a  storm  center 
with  Shaw,  as  has  "  Ghosts  "  with  Ibsen.  To 
understand   it,   is    to    understand    the    former   in 


50  BERNARD  SHAW 

much  of  his  central  faith  and  impulse  of 
work. 

The  objections  to  it  might  be  summed  up  as 
plain  speaking,  repellent  theme,  and  a  lack  of 
"  sentiment  "  as  usually  understood,  especially  in 
the  heroine,  Vivie;  together  with  a  general  hard 
rationalism  in  the  treatment  of  sex  love  and  the 
family  relations.  Some,  too,  are  offended  by  the 
facetiousness  and  fun  introduced  in  connection 
with  Frank  and  Praed.  Even  so  doughty  a 
Shavian  as  biographer  Henderson  thinks  the 
tone  of  the  play  injured  in  this  respect.  The 
only  excuse  to  be  offered  would  be  that  in  a 
drama  so  grim  and  drastic  in  theme,  the  allevia- 
tion of  humor  is  necessary:  something  that  Ibsen 
chose  to  ignore,  no  doubt  to  the  loss  of  many  fol- 
lowers. It  is  an  artistic  question:  the  question 
whether  the  composition  is  tonally  harmed  by 
"  the  laugh  mistimed  in  tragic  presences." 

As  to  the  strictures  mentioned,  short  shrift 
may  be  made  of  the  first,  the  frank  handling  of 
a  disagreeable  subject.  Modern  art  has  pretty 
well  decided  to  accept  the  extension  of  subject 
in  the  interests  of  a  broader  study  of  life  and  to 
base   judgment    upon    the    question    of   how    the 


"  MRS.  WARREN'S  PROFESSION  "        51 

thing  is  done.  The  treatment  of  sex  with  Shaw 
is  at  once  frank  and  high-minded;  if  we  object 
to  it,  we  will  have  none  of  him.  No  piece  in  the 
Shavian  repertory  is  further  removed  from  any 
concession  to  the  "  pleasant."  Distinctly,  this 
is  one  of  the  "  unpleasant  "  plays,  perhaps  the 
most  "  unpleasant  "  of  his  career.  And,  it  may 
be  to  the  winning  of  a  better  hearing  for  his 
views,  in  his  later  work  he  modified  the  uncom- 
promising, grim  austerity  of  the  treatment  here. 

The  situation  posited  is  this:  a  mother  who 
has  made  herself  wealthy  by  maintaining  houses 
of  ill-fame  has  kept  her  daughter  in  complete 
ignorance  of  the  fact,  given  her  a  college  educa- 
tion, reared  her  as  a  lady.  The  daughter  dis- 
covers the  truth,  recoils  from  her  mother  in  dis- 
gust, and  leaves  her  forever.  The  tragedy  and 
pathos  of  this  is  found  in  the  mother's  sincere 
love  for  the  daughter;  and  the  suspensive  inter- 
est (which  every  good  play  must  have)  centers 
in  the  question:  what  will  the  daughter  do? 

In  the  handling  of  this  obviously  tremendous 
situation,  there  are  technical  faults.  Coincidence 
is  stretched  in  the  meeting  of  Gardiner  and  Mrs. 
Warren ;  the  falling  together  of  Frank  and  Vivie, 


52  BERNARD  SHAW 

lovers  yet  bound  by  kin  ties,  might  be  criticised 
in  the  same  way,  as  well  as  on  the  ground  of 
taste ;  and  the  melodrama  of  the  rifle  incident  in 
act  third  is  possibly  incongruous  in  such  a  play; 
to  which,  however,  the  author  might  reply  that 
he  was  making  a  stage  play,  and  had  to  bear  in 
mind  the  intellectually  overtaxed. 

But  all  such  objections,  technical  or  esthetic, 
are  as  naught  in  the  face  of  the  vital  value  of  a 
drama  which  remains  one  of  the  most  original 
and  powerful  of  the  day.  It  has  a  fine  theme, 
brilliantly  written,  effectively  presented.  A 
daughter  brought  up  in  ignorance  of  her  mother's 
shameful  occupation,  learns  the  truth  and  re- 
jects the  mother;  there,  in  more  condensed  state- 
ment than  I  gave  it  before,  is  the  argument;  its 
bullet-like  brevity  shows  how  dramatic  is  the 
play's  central  idea.  There  is  no  better  test  of  a 
real  play  than  the  readiness  with  which  it  lends 
itself  to  a  succinct,  clear  statement  like  this.  In- 
cidental, it  would  seem,  to  the  central  treatment, 
the  daughter  also  rejects  her  lover  and  goes  in 
for  a  lifetime  of  spinster  independent  work. 
But  this  is  germane,  after  all,  to  Shaw's  thesis: 
that  society,  not  Mrs.  Warren,  is  responsible  for 


"  MRS.  WARREN'S  PROFESSION  "        53 

the  harlot,  and  that  woman's  economic  independ-  f 
ence,  once  won,  will  be  the  deathblow  to  that  ^ 
most  reverend  of  all  female  professions. 

The  way  in  which,  as  a  whole,  this  superb 
subject-matter  is  handled  cannot  but  awaken  ad- 
miration, in  all  who  know  technic  when  they 
see  it. 

In  the  first-act  curtain  speech,  we  get  a  hint 
of  what  is  to  come;  in  act  second  the  mother  is 
half  revealed  to  her  child;  in  act  third  the  full 
revelation  comes;  and  the  final  act  shows  us  the 
sequent  separation.  Here  is  skilfully  graduated 
growth  with  an  organic  texture  that  is  close- 
knit  and  congruous.  The  technic  is  basically 
that  which  accepts  the  formula  of  Ibsen  and 
adapts  it  to  particular  needs  and  personal  feel- 
ing. There  are  but  six  characters,  and  the  ex- 
position is  worked  into  the  body  of  the  play. 
Yet  to  use  four  acts  with  a  number  of  scene 
changes  savors  of  twenty  years  ago.  As  to  char- 
acterization, whatever  may  be  thought  of  Frank 
and  his  father,  the  other  three  persons  are  splen- 
did examples  of  dramatic  representation:  Mrs. 
Warren,  creature  of  a  vicious  system,  likable  in 
her  way,  even  admirable  at  moments  in  her  hon- 


54  BERNARD  SHAW 

est,  unrealizing  Philistinism,  a  pathetic,  tragic, 
ironic  human  figure;  a  very  great  piece  of  por- 
trait drawing;  Vivie,  intensely  the  new  type  of 
our  day,  shrinking  in  every  fiber  from  her 
mother  yet  valiantly  desirous  of  doing  her  jus- 
tice; hardly  inferior  to  the  other  two,  Praed,  an 
unforgettable  picture  of  the  elderly  sensualist. 
The  great  scene  where  the  mother  and  daughter 
clash  and  part,  is  on  the  whole  Shaw's  most  un- 
questionable chef  d'ceuvre  in  the  manipulation 
of  climax,  and  one  of  the  very  few  great  serious 
scenes  in  English-speaking  drama  of  our  genera- 
tion ;  paralleled  only  by  Galsworthy's  "  Justice," 
Pinero's  "  The  Second  Mrs.  Tanqueray,"  and 
possibly  one  or  two  more;  and  superior  to  any 
other  for  sheer  originality.  The  dialogue  in  the 
climactic  moments  of  the  action  has  an  idiomatic 
concision  and  happy  inevitability  of  phrasing 
that  are  above  praise.  Nothing  in  the  English 
theatre  is  better,  for  its  purpose.  Memorable 
lines  are  frequent,  like  the  terrible  one  spoken  by 
Mrs.  Warren  as  she  tries  to  convince  her  daugh- 
ter :  "  Every  woman  has  to  get  some  man  to  be 
good  to  her."  There  is  woman's  social  saga 
epitomized  in  one  short,  simple  sentence. 


"  MRS.  WARREN'S  PROFESSION  "        55 

One  feels  that  had  Shaw  continued  to  write 
plays  of  the  caliber  of  this,  he  would  have  been 
a  greater  dramatist  but  might  not  so  success- 
fully have  insinuated  his  teachings. 

Certainly  in  this  play  the  economic  and  social 
thinker  unslings  all  his  guns  in  an  attack  never 
quite  equaled  since  for  bitter  insistence  and 
stark  presentation.  It  looks  as  if  he  recognized 
he  had  been  extreme  in  method  here,  and  decided 
to  mitigate  the  message  hereafter.  In  any  event, 
the  idea  of  the  drama  is  well  worth  attention. 
Shaw  believes  that  poverty  is  the  cardinal  social  ^ 
crime:  a  notion  developed  more  fully  in  "Major 
Barbara."  Make  possible  a  comfortable  living 
wage  for  women,  recognize  maternity  at  its  true 
value  to  the  state,  and  you  throttle  prostitution. 
If  there  be  fallacy  in  this,  it  is  to  be  found  in 
overlooking  two  classes  of  women:  those  who 
prefer  vice  for  its  own  sake;  and  those  incapable 
of  earning  an  honest  wage. 

In  Bernard  Shaw's  schemes  for  social  better- 
ment in  general,  there  is  always  the  faith  in  the 
natural  good  of  human  beings:  the  assumption 
that  if  given  a  chance,  they  will  rise  to  it.  One 
honors    the    thinker's    generous    interpretation, 


56  BERNARD  SHAW 

even  if  doubtfully  querying  whether  he  do  not 
place  human  nature  too  high.  It  is  a  curious 
thing  that  one  who  seems  always  declaiming  in 
the  spirit  of  the  scoffer  against  some  moral  or 
social  backsliding,  like  a  Daniel  come  to  judg- 
ment, bases  his  whole  philosophy  upon  a 
thoroughly  optimistic  conception  of  the  ability 
of  human  beings  to  do  right  when  favorably  en- 
vironed to  do  so.  I  sincerely  believe  that  this 
archenemy  to  all  sentimentality  becomes  ro- 
mantically sentimental  in  this  favorable  opinion 
of  his  fellows ;  and  surely  he  is  all  the  more  lova- 
ble because  of  it. 

But  the  main  contention  that,  in  such  measure 
as  we  remove  the  economic  necessity  of  sin,  we 
tend  to  lessen  the  social  evil,  is  sound;  and 
Shaw's  drama  assuming  this,  finds  its  justifica- 
tion, whatever  of  exaggeration  there  may  be  in 
driving  the  idea  home. 

If  "  Mrs.  Warren's  Profession "  be  bad  art 
because  its  theme  is  non-esthetic,  we  must,  to  be 
consistent,  give  up  along  with  it,  "  Oedipus  the 
King,"  several  of  Shakspere's  most  powerful 
tragedies,  and  representative  works  by  Ibsen  and 
Brieux.     The  condemnation  cuts  off  more  heads 


"  MRS.  WARREN'S  PROFESSION  "        57 

than  one,  and  heads  that  have  a  kingly  look.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  and  cause  for  congratulation, 
we  are  hearing  less  and  less  of  such  foolish  re- 
strictions upon  serious  art.  The  thesis  is  pat  to 
our  day,  and  worth  while,  since  it  deals  with  one 
of  the  permanently  important  problems  of  civili- 
zation. It  is  cleanly,  strongly,  and  skilfully  han- 
dled and  the  drama  containing  it  is  an  intel- 
lectual stimulant  and  a  social  document  of  great 
significance.  The  late  William  James  declared 
that  in  this  piece  Shaw  made  us  see,  (as  only  the 
stage  can  make  us),  the  difference  between  con- 
vention and  conscience,  and  showed  that  you  can 
tell  the  truth,  if  you  only  do  it  benignantly. 
Disagreement  there  will  always  be  as  to  its  place 
in  Shaw's  repertory;  some  would  put  it  at  the 
top.  More  often,  the  praise  awarded  it  is 
timid  on  the  ground  of  its  unpleasantness.  To 
my  mind,  having  stage  value,  skill,  dramatic 
clinch,  and  literary  execution  in  view,  it  belongs 
with  the  few  masterpieces,  if  the  first  position  is 
not  to  be  given  it. 


58  BERNARD  SHAW 

Arms  and  the  Man 

Shaw  was  now  steadily  and  vigorously  pur- 
suing the  vocation  of  dramatist,  although  with 
small  encouragement  as  yet.  Both  "  The  Phi- 
landerer "  and  "  Mrs.  Warren's  Profession,"  as 
we  have  seen,  were  written  for  The  Independent 
Theatre,  but  not  produced  there.  His  next 
piece,  written  in  the  early  months  of  the  follow- 
ing year,  1894,  and  to  prove  one  of  his 
permanently  successful  stage  plays,  was  "  Arms 
and  the  Man,"  first  seen  at  The  Avenue  Theatre, 
London,  April  21,  where  it  was  played  until 
July  7,  an  eleven  weeks'  run  and  the  first  indica- 
tion that  his  work  could  make  anything  like  a 
popular  appeal.  It  was  produced  by  Richard 
Mansfield  at  The  Herald  Square  Theatre,  New 
York,  September  17,  1894,  but  its  reception 
was  but  lukewarm,  though  the  few  recog- 
nized its  merit,  and  it  afforded  Mansfield  one 
of  the  most  sympathetic  roles  of  his  career. 
December  of  the  same  year  it  was  given  at 
the  Deutsches  Theater,  Berlin,  under  the  title 
Helden.  These  facts  are  a  plain  proof  that 
the   tide   had  turned   and   Shaw   had   become   a 


"  ARMS  AND  THE  MAN  "  59 

man    to    reckon    with    in    the    practical    play- 
house. 

"  Arms  and  the  Man  "  is  a  brilliant  satirical 
comedy  belonging  with  the  group  of  "  pleasant " 
plays  of  his  own  description.  It  is  essentially  a 
drama,  an  amusing  story  told  within  the  frame- 
work of  a  conventional  plot,  but  novel  in  char- 
acter, treatment  and  lebensanschauung,  behind 
the  fun.  It  was  received  by  some  critics  as  an  at- 
tack upon  the  military  ideal,  and  no  doubt  that 
is  involved;  Shaw,  generally  speaking,  protests 
against  war,  and  often  satirizes  it.  But  the 
reader  who  puts  himself  to  the  trouble  to  har- 
monize the  opinion  expressed  in  a  special  play 
with  the  author's  view  in  general,  will  see  that 
Sergius  is  satirized  primarily  as  a  pseudo  ideal- 
ist and  that  Raina,  the  woman  of  his  choice,  is 
obsessed  with  the  same  notions.  Here,  as  al- 
ways, Shaw  is  aiming  at  the  false  social  ideals 
which  injure  human  life.  In  this  case,  he  laughs 
at  the  conventional  picture  of  the  "  hero,"  who 
in  his  spick-and-span  uniform  exposes  himself  in 
front  of  a  tree  instead  of  hiding  behind  it  that 
he  may  live  to  fight  another  day:  Bluntschli's 
way.     In  short,  Bluntschli  is   the  true   soldier. 


60  BERNARD  SHAW 

muddj-booted  mercenary  though  he  be,  because 
he  strips  war  of  its  specious  decorative  colors 
and  shows  it  for  the  grim  business  it  is.  He 
works  for  wage,  does  his  duty,  and  wears  unbe- 
coming clothes.  And  Raina,  when  the  scales 
drop  from  her  eyes,  turns  from  the  man-doll 
Sergius  to  the  real  fighter.  Incidentally,  there 
is  a  good  deal  of  irony  against  family  preten- 
sions, pure-blooded  nationality,  and  idealism  at 
large;  all  of  which  broadens  the  appeal  of  the 
drama  as  amusement.  And  it  should  be  observed 
that,  unlike  the  preceding  plays,  the  satire  is  not 
bitter  and  savage,  but  genial  and  hence  all  the 
more  effective.  The  idealists  reform,  the  author 
seems  to  be  enjoying  things  himself.  The  change 
of  tone  is  noticeable,  and  no  doubt  an  element  in 
its  success.  Whether  Shaw,  struggling  play- 
wright, resolved  to  court  a  quicker  success  by 
conforming  to  the  public  desire  for  theatre  en- 
tertainment, while  just  as  earnest  as  ever  to  pre- 
sent his  views,  may  be  left  to  individual  opinion. 
The  important  point  is,  that  his  principles  are 
not  sacrificed;  method  not  view  is  altered. 

"  Arms   and   the   Man "   is    above   all   a   good 
play.     The  character  drawing  is  clear,  interest- 


"  ARMS  AND  THE  MAN  "  61 

ing,  arresting,  well-contrasted.  Many  of  the 
best  bits  of  dialogue  are  mots  de  caractere, 
their  wit  derived  from  character  and  scene,  not 
from  the  author  outside  the  drama.  Not  only 
are  the  principals,  Sergius,  Bluntschli,  and 
Raina,  firmly  limned  and  delightful,  but  sec- 
ondary folk  like  Petkoff  and  Catherine  are  quite 
as  successful  in  their  due  place.  Shaw  does  a 
new  thing  in  the  penetrating  psychology  of  the 
serving  class  in  the  persons  of  Nicola  and  Louka. 
The  drama  is  also  conspicuous  as  stage  specta- 
cle and  effect.  How  clever  is  the  first  act,  and 
how  novel  in  its  use  of  material  that  might  so 
easily  be  made  suggestively  unpleasant  if  coarsely 
handled.  Shaw,  as  noted,  is  the  most  daring  man 
of  the  English  theatre  in  his  use  of  subject- 
matter  and  plain  speech;  but  at  the  same  time 
the  freest  from  offense;  this  Puritan  playwright 
writes  with  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart,  and  the 
most  ascetic  priest  could  not  be  further  removed 
from  sensualistic  taint.  The  first  act  is  a  capital 
start  to  catch  the  unthinking  in  a  play  in  which 
the  remaining  acts  constitute  a  comedy  of  char- 
acter and  dialogue  rather  than  action  in  the 
usual  external  sense.     Allowing  for  the  difference 


62  BERNARD  SHAW 

between  comedy  and  comi-tragedy,  this  opening 
act  might  be  compared  with  the  similar  act  of 
Ibsen's  "  Little  Eyolf."  The  construction, 
judged  conventionally,  is  peculiar,  a  good  exam- 
ple of  the  way  Shaw  blazes  trails  and  broadens 
stage  technic  by  his  freedom  of  handling.  Most 
often  in  a  three-act  drama,  good  building  calls 
for  act  one  to  be  longest  of  the  three,  and  the 
last  the  shortest.  Acts  one,  two,  and  three  thus 
move  in  a  descending  scale  of  time.  But  in  this 
specimen,  act  one  is  by  far  the  briefest;  the  sec- 
ond act  very  much  the  longest,  while  the  final  act 
is  less  than  half  the  second  in  length,  yet  much 
longer  than  the  first.  Compared  with  the  act 
divisions  that  are  customary,  the  proportions 
seem  all  awry.  The  reason,  of  course,  lies  in  the 
nature  of  the  piece,  and  the  playwright's  pur- 
pose. Instead  of  choosing  in  act  first,  after  the 
usual  fashion,  to  get  his  story  well  underway 
and  to  develop  characters,  he  puts  an  incident 
before  the  audience  upon  which  the  whole  story 
hangs,  and  does  his  main  character  unfolding  in 
subsequent  acts ;  much  what  Ibsen  does  in  "Lit- 
tle Eyolf." 

In  other  words,  act  one  is  almost  like  a  pro- 


"  ARMS  AND  THE  MAN  "  63 

logue,  in  place  of  the  regular  exposition  which 
characterizes  the  piece  hien  fait,  the  well-made 
play  of  the  French.  Nevertheless,  the  few  things 
necessary  to  know,  Sergius's  relation  to  Raina, 
for  instance,  are  clearly  revealed.  How  natural 
that  device  of  the  photograph  to  bring  this  re- 
sult. Looking  to  popularity,  this  method  of 
opening  a  play  is  sure  to  be  better  liked  than 
the  subtler  Ibsenian  way. 

Having,  then,  got  the  situation  before  us  in  an 
effective  prologue,  Shaw  lets  the  story  work  out 
logically,  with  the  purpose  to  show  the  disillu- 
sionment of  Raina  of  her  lover  and  her  turning 
to  Bluntschli.  And  since  he  desires  to  prepare 
the  stage  for  the  skilful  complications  of  act 
third,  where  obviously  the  scene  a  faire  is  to  be 
shown,  he  takes  plenty  of  time  in  act  second.  I 
would  particularly  draw  attention  to  the  treat- 
ment of  the  situation  in  the  last  act,  because  it 
is  a  notable  example  of  his  dramaturgy,  and  one 
of  the  most  effective  bits  of  craftsmanship  in 
modern  comedy;  to  appreciate  it  to  the  full,  is 
to  testify  to  one's  knowledge  of  play-making. 

Occasionally,  Shaw  allows  his  fun  to  interfere 
with  psychology:  as  in  Raina's  remark  about  the 


64  BERNARD  SHAW 

washing  of  one's  hands,  which  is  certainly  rather 
startling,  and  hardly  to  be  expected  from  a 
woman  of  her  breeding.  And  the  mating  of 
Sergius  and  Louka  verges  on  farce,  only  to  be 
excused  by  the  delicious  reductio  ad  ahsurdum  of 
the  Sergian  motto,  "  I  never  withdraw." 

To  the  thoughtful,  "Arms  and  the  Man"  is 
Shavian  through  and  through,  and  happily  so, 
because  surcharged  with  stimulating  suggestion. 
How  remorselessly  does  he  strip  war  of  all  its 
romance,  all  his  work  indeed  being  one  battle 
against  the  "  romance "  which  to  his  mind  so 
viciously  misleads  humanity:  and  how  keen  his 
analysis  of  so-called  bravery,  a  description  that 
Crane's  "  Red  Badge  of  Courage "  verifies. 
Bluntschli's  purely  nervous  start  when  Raina 
throws  away  the  box  of  candy  is  illuminatingly 
discriminating,  and  we  may  admire  the  superb 
common  sense  of  the  distinction  made  between 
physical  and  moral  courage.  The  proper 
emphasis  is  put  upon  the  latter. 

The  democratic  note  is  strong  in  the  play,  as 
in  the  passage  where  "  position  and  worldly 
goods  "  are  excoriated.  As  a  minor  but  amusing 
element   in   the   drama,   we    may   perhaps    see    a 


"  ARMS  AND  THE  MAN  "  65 

satiric  comment  on  the  grandiloquent  air  assumed 
by  a  small,  unimportant  principality:  the  little 
town  in  the  Balkans  takes  itself  so  very  seriously! 

By  writing  "Arms  and  the  Man,"  Shaw 
made  himself  known, — at  least  to  those  best  fitted 
to  judge, — as  a  playwright  who  could  produce  a 
clever  light  comedy  not  without  farcical  tend- 
encies, of  genuine  stage  quality  and  acting  value, 
which  yet  contained  food  for  thought  and  be- 
longs in  that  advanced  modern  theatre  where 
civilized  entertainment  is  offered  to  the  public 
desiring  it;  at  that  time,  and  still,  a  rare  com- 
bination. 

In  passing  it  may  be  worth  noting  that  "  Arms 
and  the  Man  "  is  the  only  play  of  Shaw's  so  far 
to  be  remade  into  an  opera  libretto ;  perhaps  it 
is  known  to  more  people  as  Oscar  Strauss's  "  The 
Chocolate  Soldier  "  than  in  its  original  form. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  PLAYS 

"CANDIDA"  TO  "THE  ADMIRABLE 
BASHVILLE  " 

Candida 

As  the  drama  just  described  was  in  popularity 
and  adaptability  to  theatre  needs  a  step  in  ad- 
vance of  what  went  before,  so  the  next  play 
marked  a  still  greater  forward  movement  of  the 
fast-gaining  playwright.  "  Candida,"  certainly 
one  of  his  happiest,  best,  and  most  representative 
dramas,  to  some  critics  deserving  of  the  place  of 
honor,  was  written  later  in  the  year  1894,  which 
registers  "  Arms  and  the  Man."  It  was  taken 
on  tour  by  The  Independent  Theatre  Company, 
after  a  premiere  in  Aberdeen,  during  the  spring 
of  1897,  again  in  1898,  and  had  its  first  London 
production  on  April  6,  1904.  Dresden  witnessed 
it  November  19,  1903,  at  the  Konigliches  Schau- 
spielhaus;  and  it  was  done  in  New  York  at  The 
Princess    Theatre,   December   9,    1903.      Shaw's 

66 


"  CANDIDA  "  67 

first  appearance  in  French  was  in  this  piece,  the 
place  and  time  being  February  7,  1907,  at  the 
Theatre  Royal  du  Pare  in  Brussels.  The  Parisian 
production  dates  May  7,  1908.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  "  Candida  "  was  given  in  this  country  be- 
fore it  was  in  London.  And  it  may  be  added  that 
the  performance  of  this  drama  by  Arnold  Daly 
in  New  York  was  the  first  popular  success  in 
this  land  secured  by  any  Shaw  play.  Mans- 
field's venture  had  been  no  more  than  a  critical 
success. 

The  remarkable  thing  about  "  Candida," — or 
one  remarkable  thing  where  there  are  many, — is 
that  it  established  itself  as  a  genuine  theatre 
piece  at  once  and  is  hugely  liked  of  the  general 
theatre-going  public;  yet  is  in  reality,  touching 
suggestion  and  meaning,  a  subtle  and  difficult 
drama,  many  readings  of  which  do  not  altogether 
quiet  guess  and  theory.  When  it  was  read  to  Sir 
Charles  Wyndham,  that  actor  manager  declared 
it  to  be  twenty  years  ahead  of  its  time;  Shaw 
waited  for  the  time  to  catch  up  with  him,  and  it 
did  so  in  much  less  than  the  allotted  twenty 
years !  But  "  Candida  "  and  its  history  are  in- 
structive,   because    they    testify    loudly    to    the 


68  BERNARD  SHAW 

author's  ability  to  make  the  double  appeal :  to  in- 
terest the  general  and  particular.  Again  it  is  a 
case  of  new  wine  in  old  bottles,  and  the  many  are 
so  enamored  of  the  bottles  that  they  do  not 
mind  the  heady  quality  of  the  drink. 

Viewed  casually,  we  see  this  play  as  a  satire  on 
the  French  triangle  of  husband,  wife,  and  lover, 
with  the  positions  deranged;  the  sensation  is  se- 
cured, not  by  the  fleeing  of  the  wife  with  the 
lover,  which  has  been  staled  into  the  common- 
place by  reiteration,  but  by  the  wife's  cleaving 
to  the  husband,  which  has  all  the  merit  of 
novelty.  The  comic  characters  are  so  funny: 
Candida's  father,  the  inimitable  Prossy,  another 
ten-strike  of  low  comedy,  and  Marchbanks,  who 
is  not  so  much  comic  as  comi-tragic ;  and  the  cen- 
tral scene  is  so  dramatic,  that  quite  apart  from 
the  main  problem  of  the  piece,  there  is  plenty  to 
amuse  and  enchain  attention. 

But  altogether  aside  from  its  wholesome  and 
enjoyable  satire  upon  an  unhealthy  sort  of  play 
much  in  vogue  at  the  time  and  not  entirely  dead 
yet,  and  also  setting  aside  its  ample  provision  in 
characters,  dialogue,  and  situation  for  theatre 
entertainment,  what  does  the  drama  mean.?     Th^ 


"  CANDIDA  '*  69 

critics  are  inclined  to  propose  various  theories; 
there  is  considerable  disagreement  concerning 
the  author's  intention  in  writing  it,  and  the  par- 
ticular significance  he  imputes  to  the  clergyman, 
to  Candida  herself  and  to  the  young  poet, 
Marchbanks ;  especially  to  the  last  two.  What 
just  is  Candida  as  wife  and  woman?  And  what 
is  Marchbanks,  as  a  type  in  himself  and  in  rela- 
tion to  the  married  woman  whom  he  fancies  him- 
self in  love  with?  Our  decision  on  one  of  these 
queries  affects  the  decision  on  the  other.  As  to 
the  heroine,  to  call  her  such,  the  author  proffers 
us  some  help,  although  it  is  not  altogether  satis- 
factory. Whimsically  he  declares  Candida  to  be 
outrageous,  highly  "  improper."  Dare  we  trust 
him  here?  I  take  him  to  mean  that  she  so  ap- 
pears to  the  conventions,  being  a  life-force  woman 
who  in  justifying  her  instincts,  her  love  for  her 
man,  is  doing  that  which  is  above  all  so-called 
moral  law.  In  this  sense  only  is  she  "  unprinci- 
pled." Far  nearer  to  what  Shaw  intended  in  this 
portraiture  is  the  note,  which  I  quote  in  Chapter 
VIII,  where  the  author's  general  poetic  signifi- 
cance is  summarized. 

When  in  sportive  moments  we  find  him  attack- 


70  BERNARD  SHAW 

ing  Candida  or  another  we  must  understand  it 
as  an  indulgence  which  he  allows  himself  at  the 
expense  of  the  obtuse.  Of  course  he  regards 
Candida  as  a  completely  trustworthy  person,  and 
has  a  real  penchant  for  her. 

This  granted,  you  have  a  cue  for  Marchbanks. 
Candida  is  not  a  self-indulgent  woman  who  en- 
joys having  an  interesting  pseudo-Shelley  in  love 
with  her.  Nor  in  the  fine  final  scene  is  she  auc- 
tioning herself  off,  so  to  say,  to  the  highest  bid- 
der. She  never  has  had  a  thought  of  leaving  her 
husband.  She  simply  wishes  to  teach  March- 
banks  something  of  the  deeper  values  of  woman- 
hood. And  Marchbanks,  young  and  immature 
and,  if  you  will,  silly  as  he  is,  is  a  true  poet,  and 
no  mistake  about  it.  Secure  in  her  own  love  for 
her  husband,  she  can  be  and  is  the  other's  real 
friend  by  teaching  him  the  truth  about  women. 
She  teaches  him  a  nobler  conception  of  woman 
than  his  stained-glass  idealism;  nobler,  because 
based  on  the  truth  about  human  nature;  but  he, 
after  the  manner  of  the  young  idealist,  will  have 
none  of  it  and  leaves  what  he  deems  the  "  greasy 
Paradise "  of  a  bona  fide  home  for  the  great 
outer  world  of  dream,  where  he  may  pursue  the 


"  CANDIDA  "  71 

"  eternal  feminine "  which  draws  him  on.  No 
hausfrau  for  him.  He  goes  forth  with  a  new 
note  in  his  voice,  according  to  the  stage  direc- 
tion :  "  a  man's  voice,  no  longer  a  boy's."  But  he 
is  the  picture  of  the  true  idealist  in  this  respect; 
he  sees  he  must  chase  perfection  as  he  conceives 
it,  give  up  the  attempt  at  personal  happiness  be- 
cause "  life  is  nobler  than  that."  This  is  the 
serious  and  worthy  side  of  Marchbanks,  over- 
looked by  most  critics,  plainly  indicated  in  the 
valuable  light-throwing  words  above  quoted. 
That  the  author  is  making  scornful  fun  of 
Marchbanks,  and  nothing  else,  is  flatly  contra- 
dicted by  the  fact  that  he  places  in  his  mouth 
some  of  the  most  searching  and  beautiful  sayings 
about  poetry  to  be  found  anywhere.  As  where 
he  cries,  "  All  the  love  in  the  world  is  longing  to 
speak;  only  it  dare  not,  because  it  is  shy,  shy, 
shy.  That  is  the  world's  tragedy."  And  again: 
when  Prossy,  with  her  superb  Philistinism,  mis- 
understanding all  he  says,  advises  him  to  go 
talk  to  himself,  and  he  replies :  "  That  is  what 
all  poets  do:  they  talk  to  themselves  out  loud; 
and  the  world  overhears  them.  But  it's  horribly 
lonely  not  to  hear  some  one  else  talk  sometimes." 


72  BERNARD  SHAW 

If  Shaw  did  not  wish  Marchbanks  to  be  sym- 
pathetic at  all  for  us,  but  to  appear  only  as  a 
febrile  esthete,  he  should  never  have  given  him 
such  utterances  as  these:  any  more  than  Shak- 
spere,  with  the  purpose  of  making  Shylock  repel- 
lent, should  have  written  sundry  magnificent 
speeches  which  make  him  forever  a  deeply  pa- 
thetic, appealing  figure.  The  critics  who,  at  the 
time  of  the  first  presentation  of  this  comedy  in 
America,  declared  that  the  poet  went  out  from 
the  Morell  house  to  commit  suicide,  were  cer- 
tainly, in  Shaw's  descriptive  phrase,  "  mentally 
overtaxed." 

So  much  for  the  characterization.  The  satiric 
fun,  so  sparkling  and  satisfying,  inheres  in  the 
situation  while  it  is  logical  with  the  character*. 
Prossy  is  deliciously  consistent  in  her  British  im- 
perviousness  to  aught  but  the  practical ;  a  lim- 
ited, honest  soul.  The  clergyman  assistant  is 
natural  in  his  weakness  and  strength.  The 
vulgar  father,  Burgess,  may  be  a  bit  overdone 
after  the  way  of  Dickens,  but  is  a  highly  amus- 
ing figure  in  his  offensively  genial  self-approval; 
inevitably  he  begets  eugenistic  questionings  as  to 
how  a  Candida  could  have  come  from  his  loins, 


"  CANDIDA  "  73 

the  best  answer  being  that  we  do  not  know  her 
mother;  or  that  Bernard  Shaw  is  not  averse 
from  poking  a  little  satire  at  the  eugenists,  in- 
cluding himself.  Morell  might  have  been,  in  the 
cheap  handling  which  tries  for  obvious  contrasts, 
an  unsympathetic  clerical;  instead,  he  is  a 
thoroughly  likable  showing  of  the  modern  so- 
cialist parson,  a  later  Kingsley.  His  trouble  is, 
that,  a  good  man,  he  cheats  himself  as  many 
good  men  do,  with  catchwords  and  theories.  If 
he  would  just  be  good  naturally,  being  built  that 
way,  and  enjoy  it,  Shaw  would  quite  approve  of 
him.  Candida's  straightforwardness  in  relation 
to  him,  her  delightful  feminine  seeing-through 
his  supposed  strength  to  his  very  real  weakness 
and  hence  need  of  her,  is  a  master  stroke.  Here 
one  is  reminded  of  Barrie's  heroine  in  "  What 
Every  Woman  Knows."  Candida's  unsubtlety 
it  is  that  makes  her  elusive. 

Technically,  this  play  is  admirable ;  its  con- 
struction exhibits  organic  growth  with  steadily 
increasing  tension  to  one  of  the  best  climactic 
scenes  in  modern  drama,  in  the  final  act  where 
Candida  makes  her  choice  between  the  two  men; 
an  obligatory  scene  projected  so  far  forward  as 


74  BERNARD  SHAW 

to  fall  at  the  very  end  of  the  piece.  The 
elaborate  description  with  which  the  play  opens 
is  the  best  example,  so  far  in  the  list,  of  Shaw's 
attempt  to  do  for  the  reader  what  scenery  does 
for  the  spectator.  The  curtains,  though  unob- 
trusive, are  excellent.  High  comedy,  with  layers 
of  farce,  melodrama,  and  tragedy,  is  what  Shaw 
has  dared  and  done  in  "  Candida,"  without  wrest- 
ing it  from  its  genre  in  that  unpleasant  way 
which  makes  a  confusion  in  the  spectator's  mind 
that  injures  enjoyment.  And  this,  in  spite  of 
plenty  of  puzzlement,  both  for  the  wayfaring 
man  and  the  elect.  Truly,  it  is  but  by  being 
bold  that  such  breath-taking  things  can  be 
achieved ! 


How  He  Lied  to  Her  Husband 

Since  the  jeu  d'esprit  called  "  How  He  Lied 
to  Her  Husband  "  is  a  pendant  to  the  preceding 
play,  I  will  violate  chronology  and  discuss  it 
here.  Written  in  1904,  it  was  produced  with 
"  The  Man  of  Destiny  "  at  The  Berkeley  Lyceum 
Theatre  in  New  York,  September  26  of  that 
year,  the  two  one-act  pieces  being  necessary  to 


"  HOW  HE  LIED  TO  HER  HUSBAND  "      75 

fill  out  the  evening  bill.  In  explaining  the  cir- 
cumstances leading  him  to  make  this  little  ex- 
travaganza, the  author  plainly  implies  that  the 
root  of  the  matter  may  be  found  in  the  dialogue 
between  the  two  principals  (pages  139-40, 
Brentano's  edition),  where  the  wife's  romantic 
intention  of  elopement  is  squelched  by  the  very 
mention  of  Candida;  the  play  is  humorously 
charged  by  this  would-be  Candida  as  the 
cause  of  her  own  foolish  notions,  her  roman- 
ticizing of  irregularity.  The  author  laughs 
at  those  who  are  not  able  to  catch  its  real 
drift. 

The  domestic  triangle  is  again  used,  and  ro- 
mantic obsessions  are  satirized  in  a  framework 
of  knockabout  farce,  as  Dr.  Henderson  well 
calls  it ;  the  admirers  of  "  Candida  "  are  warned 
not  to  be  too  serious  in  thesis-seeking  in  this,  or 
any  other,  drama.  Those  folk  who  take  "  Can- 
dida "  in  a  too  esoteric  way  are  good-humoredly 
joked  about  it  and  advised  that  they  are  "  men- 
tally overtaxed  "  once  more.  A  woman  is  shown 
loving  her  husband,  as  if  it  were  the  natural 
thing  to  do — however  unexpected.  The  particu- 
lar fun  comes,  it  should  be  noticed,  from  the  way 


76  BERNARD  SHAW 

the  husband  takes  the  lie  and  the  truth:  he  re- 
sents the  truth  and  wants  the  lie,  and  Shaw 
laughs  at  us  because  we  all  do.  The  lie  is  the 
illusion  that  makes  living  attractive.  This  is 
definitely  Shavian,  and  the  amusing  skit  must 
be  taken  in  this  way  and  not  be  regarded  as 
a  key  to  the  major  play,  which  it  certainly  is 
not.  This  conceded,  it  has  its  minor  place  among 
the  lighter  and  brighter  stage  moods  of  a  many- 
minded  and  often  elusive  man. 


You  Never  Can  Tell 

This  is  one  of  the  cleverest  farces,  or  farce 
comedies,  Shaw  has  written;  possibly  the  best  of 
them.  Norman  Hapgood  goes  so  far  as  to  call 
it  the  best  farce  in  the  tongue.  "  You  Never 
Can  Tell "  was  begun  in  1895,  the  year  after 
"  Candida "  was  started,  and  worked  on  inter- 
mittently during  that  year  and  later;  to  be  first 
produced  by  The  London  Stage  Society  on  No- 
vember 24,  1899,  the  first  play  of  the  author  to 
be  done  by  that  important  organization.  Shaw 
had  Cyril  Maude  in  mind  in  writing  it,  and  it 
was  put  in  rehearsal  by  that  actor  in  1897,  but 


"  YOU  NEVER  CAN  TELL  "  77 

withdrawn.  Mr.  Maude  has  given  an  amusing 
account  of  this,  as  has  the  playwright  himself; 
for  which  the  Preface  to  the  play  and  the  Hen- 
derson life  may  be  consulted.  In  1900,  at  The 
Strand  Theatre,  it  was  acted  with  success,  which 
is  also  true  of  its  New  York  reception,  beginning 
at  The  Garden  Theatre  in  1905.  Prosperity 
has  always  followed  this  piece,  which  is  indubita- 
bly a  favorite  judged  by  box  office  standards. 
After  the  strain  and  stress  of  his  earlier  "  un- 
pleasant plays,"  Shaw  seems  to  have  relieved 
himself,  while  by  no  means  abandoning  his 
satiric  purpose,  by  making  a  series  of  humorous 
dramas  in  which  the  satire,  if  present,  is  most 
unbitterly  conveyed  and  the  touch  that  of  a  true 
stage  raconteur. 

Regarded  as  a  work  of  art,  this  play  ranges 
with  the  choicest  of  the  Shavian  repertory.  It 
seems  a  light  bit  of  fooling,  yet  is  technically  so 
excellent  and  so  characteristic  in  its  viewpoint 
and  handling  as  to  be  idiosjmcratic ;  above  all, 
it  is  steadily  diverting.  It  ranks  with  "  Can- 
dida," "  Captain  Brassbound's  Conversion,"  and 
"  The  Man  of  Destiny,"  as  examples  of  the  right 
handling  of  stage  material  so  that  amusement  re- 


78  BERNARD  SHAW 

mains  paramount,  whatever  the  underlying  sig- 
nificance of  the  thought. 

Within  another  conventional  framework  of 
story,  he  has  placed  characters  and  opinions  that 
vivify  and  arouse.  No  theme  seems  outstanding, 
which  is  one  way  of  saying  that  no  thesis  is 
starkly  apparent.  Yet  many  of  the  serious  con- 
victions of  the  writer  are  embedded  in  the  drama : 
William  the  waiter  suggests  social  cleavages ; 
Gloria,  anticipating  Ann,  the  New  Woman  in  con- 
flict with  the  eternal  sex  pull;  Valentine,  an 
earlier  Tanner,  is  pushed  against  his  will  or 
judgment  into  matrimony.  The  dominant 
thought,  I  take  it,  is,  that  "  handsome  is  as 
handsome  does."  While  the  underplot  has  to  do 
with  the  love  affairs  of  Valentine  and  Gloria,  the 
main  tangle  involves  the  events  by  which  Clan- 
don,  a  husband  who  has  long  since  turned  his 
back  upon  his  family,  returns  to  them,  and  re- 
ceives at  their  hands  a  very  frosty  reception. 
If  you  want  the  perquisites  of  fatherhood,  is 
Shaw's  implicit  idea,  you  must,  unlike  Clandon, 
play  the  part  worthily.  Why  should  a  husband 
and  father  such  as  this  come  back  and  expect 
flowers  and  affection  to  greet  the  prodigal.?     As 


"  YOU  NEVER  CAN  TELL  "  79 

a  matter  of  fact,  his  wife  is  estranged  and  his 
children,  who  have  grown  up  during  his  absence, 
remember  him  unpleasantly,  dimly,  if  at  all. 
Shaw  has  his  fling  here  at  the  romantic  assump- 
tion, "  once  a  father  always  a  father,"  and 
denies  that  the  home  is  sacred  unless  you  treat 
it  sacredly.  The  genial  tone  and  the  corrective 
of  constant  laughter  carry  this  off  effec- 
tively, 

A  good  example  of  the  author's  daring  realism 
of  detail  and  setting  is  seen  in  his  placing  of  the 
opening  act  in  the  dentist's  office;  surely,  a  cur- 
tain on  a  tooth-pulling  is  a  new  climax  in  the 
English  theatre!  In  technic,  the  piece  is  a  good 
answer  to  those  who  imagine  that  Shaw  lacks 
craft  in  the  playhouse;  observe  the  careful 
preparation  of  act  one  for  its  climax;  how  wise 
it  was  not  to  draw  that  tooth.  How  brilliant 
too  is  the  curtain  of  act  four!  In  contrast  with 
acts  one  and  four  in  this  respect,  acts  two  and 
three  have  psychological  curtains,  effective  in 
their  way,  but  less  obvious.  The  love  story 
furnished  for  those  who  want  it,  is  tucked  into 
these  acts,  reserving  for  truly  Shavian  interests 
the  final  act,  to  match  the  first. 


80  BERNARD  SHAW 

The  dialogue  is  a  veritable  fusillade  of  wit  and 
one  laughs  constantly  with  one's  brain,  if  one  has 
followed  the  dramatist's  injunction  and  brought 
it  with  him!  humor,  too,  of  character,  situation, 
and  word  is  plentiful.  What  could  be  better,  for 
instance,  than  Valentine,  earning  his  first  fee  for 
six  months,  and  then  being  invited  out  to  dinner! 
Or,  unable  to  go  to  the  masked  ball,  because  he 
hasn't  the  price.  The  pairing  off  of  the  part- 
ners in  act  four  is  a  fine  blend  of  the  humor 
that  inheres  in  both  character  and  situa- 
tion. 

Like  "  Candida,"  the  piece  shows  Shaw's  in- 
sistence upon  plasticity  of  handling  at  the  ex- 
pense of  "  regularity."  The  time  values  seem 
awry  again  to  the  superficial  glance:  act  one  is 
not  the  longest  nor  the  last  act  the  shortest. 
But  reflection  indicates  that  the  business  of  act 
second  is  briefly  to  separate  the  lovers;  and  the 
last  act,  containing  the  scene  a  faire,  needs  more 
time.  In  other  words,  the  playwright  refuses 
once  more  to  be  stretched  upon  the  iron  bed  of 
conventions.  His  divergences  from  the  usual  are 
no  violation  of  essential  laws.  The  careful  artist 
is    behind    them.      The    characterization    of    the 


"YOU  NEVER  CAN  TELL"  81 

wise  William,  surely  a  masterpiece,  is  brilliant, 
yet  such  a  person  leads  to  debate.  Are  such  fig- 
ures true,  or  mere  Shavian  types?  I  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  attribute  verisimilitude  to  the  wonderful 
waiter,  nor  does  Crampton  bother  me.  The 
women  differ;  Gloria  is  perfectly  true,  her  sister 
is  not  without  exaggeration,  and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  her  brother;  together  they  make  a 
most  relishable  duo  of  stage  figures,  if  leaning 
toward  farce. 

The  mother  is  sound,  too.  But  Valentine  ap- 
pears to  be  more  dubious ;  he  has  the  earmarks 
that  suggest  Shaw  himself,  as  has  Tanner  later: 
apparent  light-mindedness,  intellectual  shame- 
lessness,  incorrigible  levity;  he  exhibits  the  un- 
emotional brain  with  the  soft  heart,  the  usual 
Shavian  clash.  We  are  not  aware  of  having  met 
him.  Yet  does  he  stand  for  a  truth;  perhaps  he 
will  become  familiar  when  the  pseudo-romantic 
shall  have  passed  away  and  we  are  able  to  see 
not  through  a  glass  darkly,  but  face  to  face. 
Let  us  call  such  a  creation  a  step  toward  super- 
man. At  present,  he  is  an  eccentric,  an  enjoya- 
ble droll,  and — a  convenient  mouthpiece.  There 
is  an  autobiographic  smack  to  Valentine,  as  in 


82  BERNARD  SHAW 

much  of  this  drama,  which  but  adds  to  its  in- 
terest. For  one,  I  am  quite  willing  to  believe 
that  the  author  sees  him  as  verity. 


The  Man  of  Destiny 

This  extremely  amusing  and  boldly  novel  one- 
act  piece,  written  in  the  autumn  of  1895,  and 
produced  for  copyright  purposes  at  Croydon  in 
1897,  was,  as  has  been  stated,  given  with  "  How 
He  Lied  to  Her  Husband"  at  The  Berkeley 
Lyceum  Theatre,  New  York.  It  was  aimed 
originally  at  Richard  Mansfield  and  Ellen  Terry, 
but  these  players,  perhaps  because  of  the  mild  re- 
ception accorded  "  Arms  and  the  Man "  and 
"  The  Devil's  Disciple,"  did  not  see  fit  to  pro- 
duce it.  Before  the  joint  appearance  with  "  How 
He  Lied  to  Her  Husband,"  in  1904,  this  play 
had  been  independently  given  by  The  American 
Academy  of  Dramatic  Arts  at  The  Empire 
Theatre,  New  York,  February  16,  1899.  The 
London  premiere  was  at  The  Court  Theatre, 
June  4,  1907,  suspiciously  later.  Berlin  did  bet- 
ter, for  it  was  seen  there  at  the  Neues  Theater, 
February  10,  1904.     It  may  be  stated  that  this 


''THE  MAN  OF  DESTINY*'  83 

drama  and  "  Captain  Brassbound's  Conversion  " 
are  dramatic  compositions  in  which  Shaw  did 
not  feel  his  wings  clipped  by  writing  for  specific 
interpreters.  Occasionally  he  seems  to  have  felt 
that  a  sharper  definition  might  be  given  to  his 
meaning  if  it  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  able  ex- 
ponents whom  he  had  in  mind  from  the  begin- 
ning. Maude,  Tree,  Irving,  Mansfield,  and  Terry 
are  distinguished  players  for  whom  he  shaped  his 
material  from  time  to  time.  His  attitude  does 
not  appear  to  argue  for  those  dramatists  who 
protest  that  to  write  for  anybody  in  particular 
(despite  the  example  of  Shakspere)  is  to  prosti- 
tute their  art.  No  doubt  it  is  best  to  choose  the 
interpreters,  however,  for  then  the  impulse  is 
from  within,  an  artistic  one.  It  is  temperate  to 
say  that,  broadly  speaking,  drama  cut  to  fit  per- 
sonality can  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  But 
to  make  a  play  and  in  the  process  discover  that 
some  actor  would  well  embody  the  main  character, 
or  to  have  that  actor  in  mind  from  the  begin- 
ning, is  quite  another  thing;  and  it  may  be  taken 
for  granted  that  this  has  happened  to  our  play- 
wright in  several  instances. 

As  so  often  with  Shaw's  lighter  and  slighter 


84  BERNARD  SHAW 

pieces,  "  The  Man  of  Destiny  "  is  immensely  char- 
acteristic; Shavian  all  through,  in  conception 
and  details  of  execution.  We  may  call  it  but  a 
skit,  if  we  choose,  and  plainly  it  stands  for  a  less 
sober  mood;  yet  it  may  be  that  such  a  mood  is 
the  ideal  one  for  literary  creation.  For  amuse- 
ment primarily,  as  it  seems,  such  a  thing  has  the 
function  to  make  us  think,  nevertheless,  and  per- 
forms it  none  the  less  surely  because  there  is 
pleasure  in  its  dialogue,  characters,  and  scene 
and  the  union  of  them.  It  is  one  of  several 
dramas  of  which  "  Caesar  and  Cleopatra,"  "  An- 
drocles  and  the  Lion,"  and  "  Great  Catherine  " 
are  other  titles,  where  the  author  blithely  pro- 
poses to  rewrite  history  and  substitute  for 
stock  figures  out  of  which  the  breath  of  life  has 
passed,  flesh-and-blood  creatures  of  reality.  He 
endeavors  to  psychologize  the  events  which  made 
them  genuine  personalities,  not  schoolboy  names. 
It  is  a  realist's  attempt  to  get  nearer  to  the 
truth  of  the  Past. 

His  own  feeling  about  it  is  happily  and  hu- 
morously summed  as  follows :  "  A  reputation  is  a 
mask  which  a  man  has  to  wear  just  as  he  has  to 
wear  a  coat  and  trousers:  it  is  a  disguise  we  in- 


"  THE  MAN  OF  DESTINY  "  85 

sist  on  as  a  point  of  decency.  The  result  is  we 
have  hardly  any  portraits  of  men  and  women. 
Nobody  knows  what  Dickens  was  like  or  what 
Queen  Victoria  was  like,  though  their  wardrobes 
are  on  record."  The  conventional  picture  of 
Napoleon  is  familiar;  instead,  w^e  are  here  shown 
not  an  historic  dummy  but  a  human  being 
motivated  after  the  facts  of  known  human  reac- 
tion to  life.  Really  to  exhibit  a  humanized  Bona- 
parte, in  his  habit  as  he  lived,  would  be  a  service 
rendered  to  the  Natural  History  of  Man,  and 
let  it  be  recalled  that  it  is  Shaw's  general  object 
to  write  that  history,  by  his  own  statement.  In 
this  little  sketch  we  see  Napoleon  as  a  strong, 
unscrupulous,  selfish  man,  with  a  distinct  dash  of 
the  histrionic,  which  makes  him  play  to  the  gal- 
lery in  order  to  secure  an  effect  of  the  noble,  al- 
truistic, patriotic.  He  thus  stands  out  as  a  fig- 
ure to  illustrate  one  of  Shaw's  favorite  doctrines : 
human  nature's  inclination  to  mask  ruthless 
strength  and  egoistic  singleness  of  purpose  be- 
hind a  fine  face  of  Duty.  He  rather  likes  Na- 
poleon, since  he  always  likes  strength,  except 
when  the  man  of  politics  and  war  poses  as  hero. 
This  desire  of  the  dramatist  that  we  should  have 


86  BERNARD  SHAW. 

the  courage  and  honesty  to  call  things  by  their 
right  names  and  not  drape  our  expression  of  the 
will-to-live  with  moral  tags,  outcrops  continually 
throughout  the  plays.  The  often  heard  criticism 
that  there  is  no  unity  or  consistency  in  Shaw's 
writings  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  what  may 
truthfully  be  said:  namely,  that  the  author  goes 
to  the  other  extreme  and  too  steadily  harps  upon 
his  favorite  views,  however  disguised  by  fable  and 
the  manipulation  thereof.  He  is  above  all  things 
coherent  and  organic  in  his  attitude  toward  life. 
Novelty  in  the  surface  matters  of  story  and  set- 
ting have  deceived  many  as  to  this  essential 
unity  of  thought. 

The  acting  value  of  "  The  Man  of  Destiny " 
is  proved  in  the  playing,  but  can  be  detected 
without  that  test.  The  tangle  of  story  is  ingeni- 
ous, the  characters  attract,  and  the  climactic 
moment,  most  cleverly  approached,  is  very  effec- 
tive. A  definite  talent  for  pictorial  and  theatric 
details  the  piece  exhibits.  The  pungent,  peculiar 
humor  that  we  savor  as  of  Shaw  is  abundantly 
in  evidence.  The  significance  of  the  play  as  a 
vehicle  for  Shaw's  thought  may  be  found  in  that 
speech  of  Napoleon  almost  at  the  end  which  de- 


"  THE  MAN  OF  DESTINY  "  87 

picts  the  Englishman  from  a  European  vantage 
point : 

"  There  is  nothing  so  bad  or  so  good  that 
you  will  not  find  Englishmen  doing  it;  but 
you  will  never  find  an  Englishman  in  the  wrong. 
He  does  everything  on  principle.  He  fights  you 
on  patriotic  principles;  he  robs  you  on  business 
principles ;  he  enslaves  you  on  imperial  princi- 
ples ;  he  bullies  you  on  manly  principles ;  he  sup- 
ports his  king  on  loyal  principles,  and  cuts  off 
his  king's  head  on  republican  principles.  His 
watchword  is  always  duty;  and  he  never  forgets 
that  the  nation  which  lets  its  duty  get  on  the 
opposite  side  to  its  interest  is  lost." 

The  present  European  struggle  might  be  used 
to  embroider  the  theory  set  forth  in  the  long 
speech  of  which  I  quote  the  concluding  sentences. 
The  effectiveness  of  it  comes  largely  from  its 
superb  avoidance  of  qualifiers  and  extenuations. 

The  story  used  is  simple  but  of  strong  interest 
in  the  handling.  Valuable  letters  have  been  lost 
through  the  carelessness  of  one  of  the  officers; 
they  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  a  woman ;  they 
must  be  secured.  How?  The  interweaving  is  SO 
skilful  that  the  tension  is  happily  maintained  to 


88  BERNARD  SHAW 

the  very  final  curtain  fall.  Sex  relations  get 
fresh  treatment  in  the  attitude  of  Napoleon  to 
the  female  spy;  their  scene  quivers  with  psycho- 
logical subtleties.  The  woman  off  stage,  the 
General's  wife,  in  her  contrast  with  the  woman 
who  is  seen,  is  in  her  influence  almost  as  potent; 
together  the  two  give  us  Shaw's  antithetical 
types.  The  subsidiary  persons  of  the  play  are 
also  capital :  the  asinine  lieutenant,  and  Giuseppe, 
the  delicious  innkeeper.  Many  of  Shaw's  ten- 
strikes  are  to  be  found  in  these  thumbnail 
sketches  of  characters,  generally  mere  foils  or 
fillers  of  time  and  space.  Some  of  his  best  hu- 
mor, too,  comes  from  their  mouths. 

The  piece,  slight  though  it  be,  bristles  with 
technical  virtues:  the  whole  closing  portion  of 
the  piece  after  the  entrance  of  the  lieutenant  is 
an  admirable  coup  de  theatre,  with  a  brio  that  is 
irresistible.  The  relations  of  the  four  dramatis 
personce  are  shifted  so  cunningly  that  the  inter- 
est never  flags. 

The  fact  that  "  The  Man  of  Destiny  "  is  more 
than  twice  the  length  of  "  How  He  Lied  to  Her 
Husband,"  suggests  the  plasticity  of  the  one-act 
form,  which  can  in  fifteen  minutes,  twenty,  half 


*'  THE  DEVIL'S  DISCIPLE  "  89 

an  hour,  catch  a  poignant  moment  of  hfe  and 
with  a  condensation  that  is  in  itself  an  advantage 
give  a  cross  section  of  the  human  show  which, 
expanded  into  an  evening,  might  be  less  compel- 
ling. 

The  DeviVs  Disciple 

This  drama,  laid  in  New  England  during  the 
Revolution,  is  one  of  the  most  typical  examples 
of  Shaw's  genius.  It  is  the  first  of  the  three 
"  Plays  for  Puritans,"  as  described  by  the  author. 
It  was  begun  in  1896,  completed  the  next  year, 
and  produced  in  early  May,  at  The  Bijou  Thea- 
tre, Hammersmith;  in  Bleecker  Hall,  Albany,  in 
October  of  the  same  year,  Richard  Mansfield  first 
showed  it  to  the  American  public.  Its  London 
production  dates  September  26,  1899,  at  The 
Princess  of  Wales  Theatre  and  under  the  name  of 
"  Teufelsherl,'"  it  was  given  November  25,  1904, 
at  the  Berliner  Theater  in  Berlin. 

The  !g[reface  conveys  a  clear  idea  of  the  piece, 
which  can  be  regarded  as  a  sjory,  a  character 
study,  and  an  interpretation  of  life.  As  story 
it  is   interesting  melodrama,  psychologized  into 


^ 


90  BERNARD  SHAW 

something  rich  and  strange.  Externally,  the 
plot  especially  involves  three  central  persons,  a 
husband  and  wife,  and  a  young  man,  who,  given 
the  chance  to  pass  himself  off  as  the  husband  and 
so  save  the  other's  life,  does  so,  and  is  about  to 
be  hung  in  consequence,  when  the  husband  ex- 
plains, and  in  this  way  frees  him;  afterwards  be- 
ing pardoned  himself,  so  that  a  play  which  might 
^^  have  been  a  tragedy  turns  out  melodramatic 
^  comedy,  and  "  ends  well "  for  the  groundlings. 
4       The    intellectual    value    of    this    lies    in    the 


peculiar  motive  of  the  young  man  in  sub&tituiisg 
^  :^  ^  for  the  husband  and  in  his  attitude  towards  the 
"^  ^  wife.  As  Shaw  says,  the  drama  is  old-fashioned, 
in  that  the  familiar  triangle  is  again  used;  in 
the  use  of  a  device  like  the  disguise  (so  much  af- 
fected by  Shakspere,  and  recurrent  ever  since)  ; 
and  in  the  obvious  situation  of  the  final  rescue 
of  Dudgeon. 

But  as  character  study  and  idea  it  is  highly 
original.  Dick,  the  devil's  disciple,  is  set  in  high 
relief  against  a  background  of  eighteenth  century 
Puritans,  who  illustrate  repressive  religion ;  Av'it- 
ness  their  treatment  of  the  child  Essie  and  her 
natural   reaction  to   Dick,  who  is   kind   to  her. 


*'  THE  DEVIL'S  DISCIPLE  '*  91 

Dick  stands  for  practical,  healthy  goodness,  the 
goodness  that  does  things  and  enters  into  red-, 
blooded  human  relations ;  his  apparent  impiety  is 
only  a  sound,  honest  nature's  protest  against 
cant,  hypocrisy,  formal  show,  and  sham.  And  he 
is  capable  of  the  greatest  self-sacrifice  when  a 
test  comes. 

Thus  he  exactly  fits  in  with  Shaw's  general 
teaching  and  his  ideal  of  character.  Shaw  is 
not  attacking  Puritanism  but  its  abuse,  as  seen 
in  certain  unlovely  manifestations  which  exhibit  it 
as  harsh,  cold,  negative,  external, — ^husks  rather 
than  the  sweet  kernel  of  truth.  In  opposition  to 
this,  Dick  Dudgeon  is  a  creature  who  follows  his 
instinfiis  (which  are  good,  notice)  and  so  con- 
nects with  the  life-force.  Conventionally,  su- 
perficially viewed,  it  appears  an  attack  upon 
religion;  it  is  in  reality  an  attack  upon  the  im- 
moral masking  behind  a  quasi  morality.  ,  The 
handling  of  the  mother-son  relation  in  its  impli- 
cation that  this  bond  must  be  lived  up  to  if  it 
shall  be  beautiful,  sends  us  back  to  "  You  Never 
Can  Tell." 

As  for  its  thesis,  this  play  says  in  effect :  "  Do 
good,    not    for    reward,    whether    the    Puritan's 


92  BERNARD  SHAW 

heaven  or  another  man's  wife,  but  for  its  own 
sake,  because  it  is  the  highest  impulse  and  law 
of  your  nature."  Thus  we  see  it  to  be  a  coiP 
sistent  part  of  the  general  Shavian  view.  It  may 
be  doubted  if  any  large  section  of  mankind  would 
act  commendably  if  all  selfish  emoluments  were 
withheld;  but  here  is  one  man  who  prefers  action 
based  upon  less  crass  and  worldly  reasons.  Hu- 
man beings  at  large  may  need  the  golden  bait ;  not 
so  Dudgeon.  That  is  his  distinction,  that  is  why 
he  is  worthily  the  protagonist  in  an  unusual  play. 
Shaw  has  himself  stated  that  the  main  persons 
in  plays  ought  not  to  be  average  folk  but 
geniuses. 

The  fun  of  the  thing,  and  this  drama  is  very 
funny  indeed  in  the  situation  thus  arranged,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  wife  and  her  attitude  towards 
Dick.  A  young  and  pretty  woman,  she  cannot 
conceive  that  Dick  could  have  saved  her  husband 
except  for  love  of  her;  the  bait  being  illegitimate 
in  this  case.  And  the  scene  in  which  Dick  coolly 
informs  her  that  he  does  not  love  her  at  all,  but 
did  a  good  act  just  to  be  decent,  to  gratify  an 
impulse  of  his  being  in  a  sudden  stress,  is  a  bril- 
liantly novel  and  amusing  theatre  stroke ;  the  ob- 


"  THE  DEVIL'S  DISCIPLE  "  93 

ligatory  scene  of  a  play  which  in  its  final  trial 
scene  has  further  proof  of  the  author's  power  in 
stage  situation.  There  is  in  fact  much  to  admire 
in  the  drama's  technic.  Despite  its  oddity,  it 
is  full  of  acting  values.  The  part  of  Dudgeon 
is  so  original,  so  contrary  to  the  tradition  of 
hero  and  lover,  that  when  the  drama  was  given 
in  London,  the  impersonator  of  the  role  actually 
kissed  a  tress  of  the  wife's  hair  at  a  certain  mo- 
ment, that  the  audience  might  not  be  cheated  out 
of  its  time-honored  enjoyment;  thus,  of  course, 
coolly  ignoring  the  whole  meaning  of  the  play 
and  the  dramatist's  intention  as  implied  in  its 
every  word.  The  play  is  another  example  of 
new  wine  in  old  bottles.  It  shows  us  a  Nietzschean 
transvaluation  of  conventional  notions  of  sex 
relations.  Daring  unusualness  of  idea  and  char- 
acters is  so  manipulated  as  to  please  the  general 
and  particular.  Act  one,  which  is  a  capital  illus- 
tration of  unconventionality  of  craftsmanship, 
has  for  its  object  to  create  atmosphere  and  make 
such  a  personage  as  Dudgeon  credible ;  and  this  is 
finely  done.  The  action  is  delayed,  for  this  rea- 
son. When  you  have  so  novel  a  character  it  be- 
comes unusually  important  to  make  it  live,  give  it 


94  BERNARD  SHAW 

verisimilitude.  As  a  result  of  this  necessity,  the 
story  is  started  later  than  is  usual  with  most 
plays.  It  is  a  mark  of  finer,  more  original 
technic  to  do  this ;  the  playwright  is  cutting  his 
cloth  to  suit  his  coat.  The  technician  will  note 
the  stage  value  of  Dudgeon's  first  entrance;  the 
effectivism  of  the  exit,  with  Judith  left  in  a  swoon ; 
the  return  of  the  husband;  and  the  handling  of 
the  court  scene:  all  examples  of  skilled  conduct- 
ment  and  knowledge  of  stage  resource.  The 
conventions  are  disobeyed  in  the  introduction  in 
the  last  act  of  a  new  set  of  characters;  some- 
thing dared  by  that  other  disturber  of  conven- 
tions, Brieux,  in  the  final  act  of  "  Maternity." 
In  Shaw's  case,  there  is  far  more  justification  be- 
cause of  the  historical  nature  of  the  scene,  and 
the  result  is  a  triumph  of  theatre  effect. 

Not  infrequently  in  Shaw,  as  we  have  seen, 
some  speech  is  crucial.  This  is  true  of  the 
speech  (page  59,  Brentano's  edition)  where  Dick 
tells  Judith  why  he  saved  her  husband;  it  was  a 
law  of  his  nature  to  do  the  unselfish  act. 

In  the  treatment  of  Burgoyne  we  note  the 
tendency,  already  seen,  to  reconstruct  historical 
personages.     The  instinct  is  to  look  below  the 


"  C^SAR  AND  CLEOPATRA  "  95 

surface,  below  superficial  denotements  to  essen- 
tials, to  real  psychic  facts;  in  short,  to  human- 
ize them.  Shaw  in  his  Preface  declares  that  the 
drama's  novelty  lies  in  the  voicing  of  the  new 
thought  which  is  part  of  the  spirit  of  the  Time; 
he  implies  that  it  is  not  his  thought  in  opposition 
to  the  general  view,  but  he  merely  reports  what 
is  in  the  air,  clairvoyantly.  His  plays  as  a 
whole  may  be  said  to  owe  part  (though  by  no 
means  all)  of  their  significance  to  this  fact;  yet 
he  is  as  far  as  possible  from  being  an  echo.  His 
voice  is  his  own,  but  it  is  enriched  with  overtones 
that  sound  the  cry  of  the  Zeitgeist, 

Ccesar  and  Cleopatra 

Another  drama  which  displays  the  author's 
liking  for  historical  rehabilitation,  and  one  of  his 
most  enjoyable  creations,  is  "  Cagsar  and  Cleo- 
patra," which,  written  in  1898,  was  produced  for 
copyright  purposes  at  The  Theatre  Royal,  New- 
castle-upon-Tyne, May  15,  1899.  Its  American 
initial  appearance  was  at  The  New  Amsterdam 
Theatre,  New  York,  October  30,  1906.  More 
than  a  year  later,  at  The  Savoy,  London,  on  No- 


96  BERNARD  SHAW 

vember  25,  1907,  occurred  the  English  premiere. 
The  piece  was  played  originally  by  Sir  Johnston 
Forbes  Robertson  and  his  wife,  Gertrude  Elliot, 
and  has  been  a  successful  number  of  their  reper- 
tory, wherever  it  has  been  seen. 

At  a  first  reading  of  this  play,  and  in  com- 
parison with  close-knit  work  like  "  Candida," 
"  Arms  and  the  Man,"  and  "  The  Devil's  Disci- 
ple," it  seems  a  straggling,  inorganic  composi- 
tion, whatever  its  merits  of  detail,  and  they  are 
numerous.  To  see  it  acted,  modifies  the  impres- 
sion; the  general  scenic  value,  the  attraction  of 
particular  scenes,  and  the  fact  that  the  genre  of 
the  piece  is  that  of  chronicle  history,  which  from 
its  nature  calls  for  picturesque,  varied,  and  slow- 
moving  treatment,  all  combine  to  change  the 
judgment.  The  drama  is  seen  to  be  an  admira- 
ble example  of  dramaturgy  in  its  kind.  Its  cen- 
tral significance  is  that  of  a  character  sketch 
wherein  a  reconstructed  personality  becomes  a 
typical  Shavian  protagonist,  a  man  after  Shaw's 
ideal;  presented  with  humor,  satire,  and  deep 
fetches  of  philosophy,  and,  within  the  envelope  of 
story,  resulting  in  a  veritable  contribution  to  let- 
ters.    Whether  we  get  nearer  to  the  real  Caesar, 


"  CiESAR  AND  CLEOPATRA  "  97 

we  certainly  are  helped  to  get  nearer  to  the  life 
view  of  Bernard  Shaw,  which  is  quite  as  much 
worth  while.  To  be  offered  Caesar  as  he  was,  is 
not,  strictly  speaking,  a  gift  coming  most  natur- 
ally and  gracefully  from  the  maker  of  literature: 
we  look  to  the  historian  for  that. 

The  conception  of  this  mighty  captain  of  the 
ancient  world  is  beautifully  in  harmony  with  the 
author's  general  interpretation  of  life  and  men. 
Csesar  is  known  of  the  world  as  primarily  war- 
rior; this,  despite  a  sad  knowledge  of  him  as  a 
writer  by  schoolboys.  But  Shaw  does  not  ad- 
mire war  as  settling  the  claims  of  human  great- 
ness and  therefore  insists  that  one  of  the  few 
great  men  of  all  time  must  have  been  great  out- 
side that  test  and  consequently  so  represents  him: 
brave,  magnanimous,  possessing  innate  rightness, 
rather  than  conventional  morality,  which  means 
the  outward  observance  of  a  code.  He  is  kind, 
unsensual,  tolerant,  since  it  is  his  nature  so  to 
be.  But  he  is  amiably  humanized  by  weakness; 
which  is  amusingly  shown  in  his  attitude  towards 
his  fifty-two  years.  Disliking  the  mere  sensual- 
istic  picture  of  his  relation  to  Cleopatra,  Shaw 
throws  the  cold  water  of  his  satiric  logic  on  it 


98  BERNARD  SHAW 

by  reminding  us  of  the  disparity  of  their  ages; 
and  thus  pricks  the  bubble  of  Shakspere's  ro- 
mantic treatment.  In  Shaw's  famous  attack  on 
the  Elizabethan  poet,  it  should  be  noted  that  it 
is  neither  Shakspere's  matchless  gift  for  expres- 
sion nor  his  indubitable  cunning  as  a  maker  of 
plays  which  awakens  his  ire.  It  is  rather  his 
limitation  of  ideas,  bound  by  the  limitations  of 
his  time;  and  he  makes  the  point  that  a  mod- 
ern dramatist,  himself,  to  illustrate,  can  be 
"  greater  "  than  the  earlier  man  because  he  has 
the  advantage  of  living  at  a  period  when 
thought  has  advanced  and  so  can  begin  where 
the  sixteenth  century  left  off.  In  short,  a  care- 
ful examination  will  disclose  that  here  as  else- 
where it  is  the  intentionally  arresting,  paradoxi- 
cal, audacious  manner  of  the  thought,  not  the 
thought  itself,  which  is  offensive,  if  any  offence 
there  be. 

It  is  altogether  possible  that  the  altered  Caesar 
of  Shaw's  brush  may  be  no  nearer  the  truth  than 
the  Caesar  commonly  offered;  the  main  thing  is 
that  Caesar  is  vitalized,  and  is  the  cause  of  stimu- 
lating suggestion  about  human  nature.  The 
view  of  Walkley  and  others  that  the  author  is 


"  C^SAR  AND  CLEOPATRA  "  99 

incapable  of  emotionalism  hardly  bears  the  test 
of  the  mystic  speech  which  introduces  the  leader 
to  the  Sphinx;  this  question  in  its  relation  to  his 
work  as  a  whole,  is  treated  in  a  later  chapter. 

Being  a  comedy  of  character  in  a  setting  of 
chronicle  history,  enlivened  by  episodes  and  much 
pictorial  appeal,  we  find  the  play  falls  into  the 
older  five-act  division;  has  frequent  shifts  of 
scene,  many  persons,  massed  effects;  the  familiar 
denotements  of  suchlike  drama.  The  incidental 
satire  is  rich  and  varied;  it  embraces  thrusts  at 
war,  the  military  obsession,  conventional  duty, 
and  English  art  ideals,  with  a  special  compliment 
to  art  for  art's  sake  and  the  ugliness  of  com- 
mercialism. The  author's  position  is  also  pun- 
gently  revealed  touching  revenge  and  forgiveness. 
There  is  plenty  of  the  expected  humor  of  the  dif- 
ferent sorts  suited  to  the  stage.  For  sheer  felic- 
ity of  phrase  and  startling  brilliance  of  thought 
this  play  is  with  the  few  from  Shaw's  reper- 
tory. 

"  But  when  I  return  to  Rome,"  says  Caesar  to 
Cleopatra  at  one  juncture,  "  I  will  make  laws 
against  these  extravagances.  I  will  even  get  the 
laws  carried  out."     And  as  one  smiles  with  keen 


100  BERNARD  SHAW 

appreciation,  one  recognizes  the  thorough  stu- 
dent of  modern  governmental  methods.  It  is  a 
great  temptation  to  quote  when  quotation  is 
once  begun;  but  the  reader  is  recommended  to 
turn  to  the  really  great  speech  (page  194),  the 
deliverance  on  vengeance,  with  its  thesis  that  war 
breeds  war,  as  having  a  particularly  pertinent 
application  at  the  present  time. 

The  drama,  among  other  things,  for  its  mean- 
ings are  as  varied  as  is  its  form,  might  be  taken 
as  a  study  of  the  aging  man  in  relation  to 
women;  his  half -humorous,  half-bitter  conscious- 
ness that  his  attraction  for  them,  aside  from  pub- 
lic reputation,  is  passing,  or  past. 

Captain  Brasshound's  Conversion 

This  drama,  another  proof  of  versatility,  was 
written  during  1898  and  1899,  after  correspond- 
ence with  Ellen  Terry  in  1897.  It  was  produced 
by  The  London  Stage  Society,  Strand  Theatre, 
December  16,  1900,  and  four  days  later  at  The 
Criterion  Theatre,  London,  December  20;  its 
New  York  production  dates  January  28,  1907, 
at  The  Empire  Theatre.     Miss  Terry  had  the 


"  CAPT.  BRASSBOUND'S   CONVERSION  '    101 

leading  part  in  the  last  two  productions.  Nota- 
ble revivals  were  made  in  New  York,  in  1915  by 
Gertrude  Kingston,  in  1916  by  Grace  George. 
Here  is  a  piece  of  excellent  acting  valu^  de- 
vised it  would  appear  primarily  for  amusement, 
yet  containing  much  of  the  Shavian  philosophy 
we  are  accustomed  to  look  for.  Once  more  a  con- 
ventional framework  of  melodrama  is  used,  but 
within  it  we  are  made  by  means  of  dialogue  and 
character  treatment  to  reflect  upon  some  of  the 
fundamental  issues  of  life;  that,  for  example,  of 
the  relation  of  kinsfolk,  and  (recurrent  after 
"  Csesar  and  Cleopatra  ")  the  foolishness  of  re- 
venge. It  is  not  hard  to  see  why  the  play  is  good 
stage  material.  Laid  in  Morocco,  it  has  scenic 
attraction,  much  contrast  of  characters,  its  in- 
dividual scenes  are  of  the  liveliest  description, 
and  the  aspects  of  life  it  depicts  have  the  charm 
of  exotic  unusualness.  Moreover,  it  has  a  splen- 
did part  for  the  leading  player,  as  Miss  Terry 
amply  bore  witness  when  she  gave  it.  Nor  is  the 
leading  male  part  far  behind,  although  it  is  more 
difficult  to  envisage  its  peculiarities.  Also,  the 
drama  has  an  unquestionable  central  scene,  the 
tense  culmination  of  all  that  goes  before, — that 


102  BERNARD  SHAW 

in  which  Captain  Brassbound  puts  all  to  the  test, 
and  reveals  his  love  to  Lady  Cicely. 

Shaw  makes  keen  but  not  cruel  fun  in  the 
story  of  that  phase  of  the  conventional  romantic 
which  awards  sainthood  to  a  dead  mother,  irre- 
spective of  the  facts,  and  builds  up  an  attitude 
against  others  upon  the  basis  of  this  wrong  no- 
tion. In  the  conductment  of  the  fable  he  may 
abuse  coincidence,  but  this  is  unimportant  in  a 
play  of  the  kind ;  the  shell  is  fantastic,  and  it  is 
the  revolutionary  power  of  the  ideas  which  gives 
it  value  in  any  serious  sense.  The  captain  has 
taken  the  traditional  view  of  law  and  of  mother- 
hood; hence  he  has  made  his  uncle  a  villain,  and 
has  deified  his  mother ;  revenge  is  his  ideal  motive, 
to  it  he  has  dedicated  his  life,  and  because  of 
it  become  an  outlaw.  Contact  with  Lady  Cicely 
teaches  him  better.  The  charm  of  this  character 
is  beyond  dispute;  nor  is  it  to  be  confused  with 
the  personal  appeal  of  the  distinguished  player, 
Ellen  Terry,  who,  at  fifty-eight,  created  the 
role,  and  was  a  figure  of  provocative  and  elu- 
sive delight.  But  she  is  quite  as  truly  the 
embodiment  of  Shavian  notions  of  life  and  person- 
ality.   It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  this  fem- 


"  CAPT.  BRASSBOUND'S   CONVERSION  "    103 

inine  character,  perhaps  the  most  salient  and  at- 
tractive in  his  whole  gallery  of  portraits,  is  at 
the  same  time  distinctively  a  type  stamped  with 
the  author's  hallmark.  With  Lady  Cicely  we  see 
will  flowering  in  instinctive  acts  which  are  whole- 
some and  good  because  of  the  sound  and  sweet 
nature  behind  them.  She  is  Shaw's  answer  to 
those  critics  who  declare  he  is  all  head :  "  no,  mes- 
sieurs the  enemy,"  we  hear  him  reply ;  "  not  head, 
but  will,  which  involves  the  emotive  nature,  and 
the  intuitions  and  impulses,  as  well."  It  will  be 
instructive  to  compare  this  woman  with  the 
heroines  in  Mackaye's  "  Mater,"  and  in  several 
Barrie  plays,  of  which  one  is  "  What  Every 
Woman  Knows."  They  belong  to  the  same 
category,  with  whatever  differences:  the  woman 
possessing  that  peculiar  feminine  charm  with  wis- 
dom which  has  in  it  a  sort  of  whimsical  apparent 
disregard  of  law  and  order  and  tradition,  which 
refuses  to  kow-tow  to  proprieties  solemnly 
evolved  by  man  for  the  protection  of  society; 
yet  who  can  be  safely  trusted,  in  all  the  vital 
moments  of  action.  And,  above  all,  who  is  con- 
stantly winsome,  doing  good  without  being  goody- 
goody. 


104  BERNARD  SHAW 

Technically,  the  drama  is  especially  interesting 
for  the  way  it  handles  masses  and  marshals 
events  so  as  to  make  the  characters  stand  out  in 
grateful  relief;  for  note  that  it  is  the  sort  of 
play  which  tends  to  draw  attention  away  from 
characterization  and  fix  it  upon  story.  The 
handling  of  the  respective  acts  is  also  worth 
study.  The  first  is  a  good  example  of  exposi- 
tion, the  subsidiary  persons  used  for  the  purpose 
being  in  themselves  enjoyable,  and  not  mere  lay 
figures ;  the  opening  conversation  of  Drinkwater 
and  Rankin  illustrates  a  characteristic  which 
separates  Shaw  from  all  but  the  best  dramatists: 
I  mean  his  ability  to  make  minor  figures  distinc- 
tive and  of  value  in  their  own  persons.  One  such 
character  as  the  inimitable  little  cockney  gutter- 
snipe, Drinkwater,  would  give  a  play  distinction. 
He  clings  to  the  mind  in  much  the  same  way  as 
does  Silver  in  Stevenson's  "  Treasure  Island," 
— rascals  both,  drawn  with  that  tolerant  under- 
standing sympathy  in  which  the  brain  cooper- 
ates with  the  heart.  Act  second  furnishes  the 
external  exciting  cause,  leaving  act  third  for  the 
true  psychological  situation,  that  is,  the  conver- 
sion of  Brassbound  through  Lady  Cicely's  influ- 


*'  CAPT.  BRASSBOUND'S   CONVERSION  "     105 

ence:  which  is  what  Shaw  is  after.  The  second- 
act  kidnapping  material  is  divertissement,  and 
makes  this  an  amusing  stage  play  for  the  general. 
The  gist  of  the  argument  may  be  found  in  read- 
ing from  page  301  to  the  end  of  the  play;  one 
again  detects  the  author's  philosophy  plainly  an- 
nounced in  the  Captain's  words  to  Lady  Cicely, 
as  he  tries  to  explain  how  it  was  with  him  before 
she  came: 

"  I  don't  say  I  was  happy  in  it ;  but  I  wasn't 
unhappy,  because  I  wasn't  drifting.  I  was 
steering  a  course  and  had  work  in  hand.  Give  a 
man  health  and  a  course  to  steer;  and  he'll  never 
stop  to  trouble  about  whether  he's  happy  or 
not."  The  one  intolerable  thing  to  Shaw  is  drift- 
ing; the  wastrel  type  he  cannot  abide,  not  be- 
cause it  is  "  wicked,"  but  because  it  is  aimless. 

Sprinkled  through  the  drama  is  much  of  the 
incidental  wit,  and  satire,  and  the  flashlights 
upon  Life,  which  signalize  the  better  efforts  of  the 
author;  the  play  surely  is  among  his  happily 
creative  productions. 


106  BERNARD  SHAW 

The  Admirable  Bashville:  Or  Constancy 
Unrewarded 

This  trifle,  written  in  1902-3,  was  produced  on 
June  7  and  8,  by  The  London  Stage  Society,  at 
The  Imperial  Theatre,  London.  Not  to  be  taken 
seriously  as  drama,  it  is  interesting  because  it 
was  done  to  escape  from  the  legal  technicality 
of  stage  copyright,  a  matter  but  little  under- 
stood. The  Preface  is  both  amusing  and  il- 
luminating in  giving  us  the  situation.  As  the 
title  states,  it  is  a  three-act  blank  verse  render- 
ing of  the  author's  novel,  "  Cashel  Byron's  Pro- 
fession," fiction  which  has  proved  the  nearest  to 
popularity  of  any  he  has  written.  He  tells  us 
frankly  he  did  it  to  protect  his  dramatic  rights 
in  his  fiction,  since,  by  the  iniquitous  English 
copyright  laws,  anyone  could  make  a  stage  play 
of  the  book,  unless  the  author  did  so  first.  In 
fact,  a  dramatization  of  "  Cashel  Byron's  Pro- 
fession," under  that  title,  was  given  at  Daly's 
Theatre,  New  York,  with  James  J.  Corbett  as 
the  prizefighter.  Shaw  in  his  most  characteristic 
style  adds  that  he  likes  to  experiment  in  blank 
verse,  and  since  he  had  but  a  week  to  do  the 


"THE  ADMIRABLE  BASHVILLE  "     107 

drama  in,  he  threw  it  into  that  form  as  so  much 
easier  than  prose! 

Then  follow  several  pages  of  criticism  of  the 
Elizabethan  dramatists  which  display  Shaw,  the 
critic,  at  his  most  dazzling  of  iconoclasm: 

At  every  word  a  reputation  dies. 

And  when  the  smoke  clears  away,  one  comes 
to,  and  realizes  that,  as  usual,  truth  lurks  behind 
Gargantuan  exaggeration. 

This  little  experiment  is  not  to  be  taken  too 
seriously.  The  picture  of  a  prizefighter  spout- 
ing blank  verse,  and  using  the  stilted  thous  and 
thees  of  the  elder  literature  is  fun  in  its  way; 
but  it  is  sensible  to  assume  a  utilitarian  origin 
for  the  piece  and  to  conclude  that  it  is  likely  to 
take  the  boards  only  as  a  curiosity. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  PLAYS 

"MAN   AND   SUPERMAN"   TO   "GETTING 
MARRIED  " 

Man  and  Superman 

"  Man  and  Superman  "  has  always  been  reck- 
oned as  one  of  the  important  plays  of  Ber- 
nard Shaw,  and  to  some  it  stands  first  on  the 
list.  There  is  no  question  that  it  contains  his 
cardinal  teaching;  moreover,  it  is  one  of  his 
really  brilliant  theatre  successes,  and  demon- 
strated his  stage  gift  early  in  his  career.  Dr. 
Henderson  says  it  was  written  during  1903-4, 
but  Shaw  declares  he  w^orked  upon  it  a  year  or 
so  earlier  than  this.  In  any  case,  its  first  per- 
formance was  by  The  London  Stage  Society, 
May  21,  1905;  and  its  American  production 
dates  September  4,  of  the  same  year,  at  The 
Hudson  Theatre,  New  York.  This  thoroughly 
typical   piece,    as    earnest    an   exposition    of   his 

108 


"  MAN  AND  SUPERMAN  "  109 

views  as  he  has  given  the  world  and  only  less 
drastic  than  "  Mrs.  Warren's  Profession,"  be- 
cause of  the  nature  of  its  subject  and  treatment, 
might  be  baffling  if  it  were  the  first  approach  to 
Shaw;  read  without  some  previous  acquaintance 
with  his  thought,  it  would  offer  many  obstacles. 
But  those  who  have  followed  me  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  writer  and  thinker,  will  find  it  beau- 
tifully consistent  with  the  general  attitude  and 
meaning. 

The  main  play,  omitting  the  long  philosophi- 
cal scene  in  the  third  act,  which  is  not  given  in 
the  stage  presentation,  deals  with  the  way  in 
which  John  Tanner  (Shaw  under  a  thin  disguise) 
strives  to  elude  Ann,  the  woman  who  loves  him 
and  intends  to  get  him,  and  does.  His  flight  to 
Europe  is  useless,  and  in  his  heart  he  recognizes 
he  is  a  fated  victim  of  matrimony,  an  estate  he 
intellectually  despises,  but  as  mere  man,  hankers 
for.  In  this  manipulation  of  story,  the  author 
explodes  wittily  the  pretty  theory  that  woman 
is  the  hunted  one,  man  the  hunter.  Regarded  as 
an  organic  treatment  of  plot,  the  first  act,  in  it- 
self of  exceeding  interest  and  great  acting  value, 
may  be  criticised  as  a  deflection  from  the  main 


no  BERNARD  SHAW 

story;  it  concerns  Violet's  apparent  violation  of 
social  conventions  and  aifords  Shaw  an  oppor- 
tunity to  let  Tanner  declaim  against  what  he 
considers  the  prim  negations  which  fail  to  see 
that  sincere  love  which  results  in  presenting  the 
community  with  healthy  children  has  much  in  its 
favor.  The  justification  for  the  act  dramati- 
cally is  to  be  found  in  the  reflection  that  it  is  an 
added  illustration  of  the  general  subject  of  sex 
relations,  a  sort  of  overtone  to  the  central  theme 
of  the  problem  of  Ann  and  John.  Its  cohesion  is 
that  of  thesis:  it  has  intellectual  unity  with  the 
remainder  of  the  play.  Violet  is  another  exam- 
ple of  the  action  of  the  life-force. 

Philosophically,  the  omitted  scene  of  the 
third  act  is  most  important,  though  dramati- 
cally it  is  nil.  In  a  long  argument  is  expanded 
the  idea  that,  projecting  the  influence  of  Ro- 
mance beyond  the  grave,  heaven  is  the  good 
place  because  the  place  where  reality  is  attained; 
hell  the  bad  place,  albeit  attractive,  because  the 
place  where  people  are  still  fed  upon  romantic 
lies,  old  age,  sickness,  gross  physical  facts  in 
general, — being  removed.  Thus,  the  act  is  a 
logical  extension  of  his  views  on  Romance,  mean- 


"MAN  AND  SUPERMAN"  111 

ing  the  falsities  which  obscure  the  relations  of 
the  sexes;  here  presented,  as  it  were,  in  terms  of 
the  eternal.  The  Preface,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
appended  Revolutionist's  Handbook,  must  be 
read  to  get  the  full  handling  of  the  idea.  Don 
Juan  is  Shaw,  in  viewpoint;  while  in  earlier  rep- 
resentations he  is  a  sensualistic  cynic,  in  Shaw's 
hands  he  is  an  intellectual  one;  as  the  Don  Juan 
of  Moliere,  Byron,  Mozart,  sees  through  women 
and  so  plays  with  them  physically,  so  Shaw- 
Tanner  sees  through  them  in  a  higher  sense  and 
satirizes  them,  although — and  this  is  the  humor 
of  it, — he  yields  to  their  age-old  charm,  be- 
cause the  life-force  sweeps  him  off  his  feet.  It  is 
a  tribute  to  Shaw  the  dramatist  to  realize  that 
this  play  is  of  such  acceptance  in  the  theatre. 
Here  is  a  composition  which  is  an  intellectual 
document  beyond  cavil,  gets  its  true  significance 
from  that  fact;  but  which,  after  omitting  nearly 
a  whole  act  of  the  written  drama,  rather  an  un- 
usual thing  to  do  in  contemporary  dramaturgy, 
yet  remains  an  acting  vehicle  at  which  the  care- 
less theatre  audience  laughs  heartily  and  con- 
stantly. Those  who  have  witnessed  it  must  con- 
cede that  in  the  field  of  satiric   comedy  "  Man 


112  BERNARD  SHAW 

and  Superman  "  furnishes  as  en  joy  ably  stimulat- 
ing an  evening  as  the  latter-day  stage  can  offer. 
Few  dramas  in  stage  history  create  so  electrical 
an  atmosphere  of  alert  mental  exercise.  And 
the  laughs  which  ripple  over  the  house  are  of  two 
kinds;  the  gallery  guffaw  is  there,  but  also  the 
subdued  cachinnation  of  the  brain.  Straker 
arouses  the  one,  where  Tanner  arouses  the  other. 
Whatever  unconventionality  the  drama  may  be 
said  to  display,  it  achieves  the  two  main  things 
in  the  playhouse:  it  pleases,  it  makes  you  think. 
In  dialogue,  characterization,  situation,  it  is 
masterly.  To  say  it  has  no  "  action,"  is  puerile, 
since  action  in  the  psychological  sense  of  showing 
us  character  development  through  human  clash 
and  crisis  it  fairly  teems  with.  This  is  the  sort 
of  action  desirable  in  the  thoughtful  theatre 
of  civilization.  Ann,  Ramsden,  Violet,  Tavy, 
Straker,  Tanner  himself, — there  is  no  more  strik- 
ing and  successful  group  in  modern  serious 
comedy.  Surely  part  of  the  essence  of  good 
drama  which  we  agree  depends  so  much  upon 
clash  and  crisis  in  the  characters  of  the  play,  is 
also  dependent  upon  the  dramatist's  ability  to 
present  picturesque  and  salient  contrasts  of  char- 


"MAN  AND  SUPERMAN"  113 

acter;  and  in  this  respect,  Shaw's  plays  are  con- 
spicuous; moreover,  here  is  one  hardly  to  be  sur- 
passed in  his  repertory.  Ann  is  the  conventional, 
proper  woman  as  exponent  of  the  life-force ;  Vio- 
let, the  unconventional  woman  (so  she  appears  at 
least)  who  also  expresses  the  call  of  the  life-force ; 
they  are  "sisters  under  the  skin,"  after  all.  As  a 
corrective  of  the  traditional  attitude  towards  the 
"  lost  "  woman,  this  is  a  healthy  antidote. 

The  climax  of  the  second  act  may  be  pointed 
to  as  one  of  those  curtain  effects  which  Shaw 
can  command  when  he  chooses  to  use  traditional 
means  to  such  results ;  the  start  of  Tanner  and 
his  chauffeur  in  the  motor  in  a  wild  attempt  to 
escape  Ann,  is  very  funny  and  as  effective  as  it 
is  funny;  more  original  a  dozen  or  more  3^ears 
ago  than  it  seems  now;  for  imitators  are  ever  on 
the  watch  and  they  have  been  active  since. 

In  respect  of  the  argument  that  woman  is 
really  the  hunter,  not  man,  it  may  be  said  to  con- 
tain a  half  truth,  at  least,  with  curious  justifi- 
cations in  biological  and  anthropological  his- 
tory. The  dominance  of  the  woman  in  family 
and  tribe  in  primitive  times ;  the  analogy  of  the 
bee;    the    new    exhibition    of    public    power    dis- 


114  BERNARD  SHAW 

played  by  women  today,  with  the  more  hidden 
fact  of  their  power  behind  the  throne  in  all  so- 
cial epochs, — these  and  other  considerations  can 
be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  dramatist's  witty 
use  of  his  idea.  His  underlying  suggestion  to 
man,  with  respect  to  woman,  might  be  expressed 
as  follows: — 

"  My  dear  Sir,  you  do  not  know  her ;  make  her 
acquaintance,  try  to  see  her  as  she  really  is — 
for  the  good  of  both." 

John  Bull's  Other  Island 

Written  in  1904,  this  piece  was  seen  at  The 
Court  Theatre,  in  London,  on  November  1,  the 
same  year,  this  following  its  rejection  by  The 
Irish  Literary  Theatre  for  reasons  both  financial 
and  intellectual.  It  was  produced  at  The  Gar- 
rick  Theatre,  New  York,  October  10,  1905;  and 
was  revived  at  The  Kingston  Theatre,  London,  in 
February,  1913.  At  its  first  appearance  it  won 
success,  artistic  and  social,  and  a  performance 
was  commanded  by  the  king.  The  political  situa- 
tion was  such  at  the  time  as  to  make  it  pertinent. 
In  "  John  Bull's  Other  Island,"  Shaw  shows  as 


"JOHN  BULL'S  OTHER  ISLAND"     115 

plainly  as  he  ever  did  that  he  stands  for  the 
theatre  of  ideas;  for  he  most  evidently  turns  his 
back  on  story,  and  studies  types  and  national 
questions;  such  drama  as  there  is  we  must  find 
in  their  contrasts  and  clashes. 

The  framework  is  of  the  simplest,  and  there  is 
little  real  complication.  Two  friends,  an  Irish- 
man and  an  Englishman,  go  to  Ireland;  the  Eng- 
lishman wins  in  politics  and  war  against  the 
Irishman.  Why?  Because,  says  Shaw  in  effect, 
of  the  very  dunderheaded  blunders  and  genial 
misconceptions  which  make  him  English.  The 
Irish  Larry  fails,  for  the  very  reason  that  he 
knows  too  much,  sees  through  things,  is  disillu- 
sioned. 

Thus  the  play  stakes  its  claim  to  our  regard 
fairly  and  squarely  upon  its  intellectual  appeal: 
on  characterization,  setting,  and  idea.  In  these 
respects  it  is  an  extremely  interesting,  suggestive 
example  of  special  pleading;  nor  should  its 
scenic  attraction  be  overlooked,  nor  its  un- 
doubted merits  of  situation;  the  capital  scene 
with  Haffigan  in  act  one,  the  Nora-Broadbent 
scene  at  the  Tower  in  act  two,  the  climax  in 
which  the  pig  figures  as  protagonist  in  act  third, 


116  BERNARD  SHAW 

and  the  opening  scene  of  act  four,  are  all  good 
drama  in  their  varied  ways.  But  of  drama  of 
the  traditional  sort,  that  which  gives  us  plot 
tangle  and  progression  to  the  cutting  of  the  knot, 
it  is  innocent.  One's  interest  does  not  lie  in  how 
it  is  coming  out,  save  as  one  cares  to  see  a  fur- 
ther revelation  of  the  persons  involved.  In 
sharply  contrasted  and  highly  enjoyable  figures 
the  drama  must  be  placed  among  the  leading 
works  of  the  author.  The  buoyant,  optimistic, 
credulous,  and  conventional,  yet  very  lovable 
Broadbent;  the  cool,  irritable,  clear-witted,  disil- 
lusioned Larry;  the  range  of  other  Irishmen 
from  the  caddish,  bibulous  HafRgan,  up  to  the 
superb  mystic,  Keegan ;  Nora,  with  her  faded  rus- 
tic gentility,  an  aroma  about  her  like  that  of  a 
hardy  spring  flower,  so  unlike  the  usual  delinea- 
tion of  the  Irish  maiden  that  we  gasp  before  her ; 
the  several  varieties  of  laborers,  down  to  Patsy, 
child  of  the  soil  and  superstition ;  all  of  them  are 
the  work  of  one  with  a  remarkable  gift  for 
limning  human  beings  who  have  a  knack  of  get- 
ting themselves  seen  and  remembered. 

As  philosophy,  the  drama  is  one  of  the  impor- 
tant documents  in  the  case  of  Shaw  vs,  his  time. 


"JOHN  BULL'S  OTHER  ISLAND"      117 

Here  is  his  definite  opinion  of  the  Irish  question, 
one  of  the  vital  and  most  complex  problems  of 
the  day.  We  Americans  are  necessarily  a  little 
at  arm's  length  on  this;  its  natural  difficulties 
are  not  bettered  by  having  the  sundering  seas  be- 
tween us,  nor  is  light  thrown  helpfully  by  the 
Irish-American,  as  we  see  him.  But  by  reading 
the  play  and  the  little  book  which  is  dubbed,  "  A 
Preface  for  Politicians,"  we  may  at  least  get  a 
clear  notion  of  what  Shaw  thinks.  He  believes 
Ireland  can  only  be  satisfied  by  Home  Rule  be- 
cause it  is  a  natural  right,  rather  than  because 
its  establishment  will  of  necessity  work  out  a  bet- 
ter state  of  things.  He  holds  that  Ireland  has 
gone  wrong  because  she  has  substituted  dreams 
for  the  truth.  And  obviously,  here  we  get  the 
steady  Shavian  attitude  applied  to  a  particular 
theme.  The  Englishman  indulges  in  bursts  of 
ideality,  romanticism,  but  always  as  an  agreeable 
aside,  not  for  a  moment  to  be  taken  seriously  nor 
allowed  to  interfere  with  his  real  business.  There 
is  the  difference,  the  reason  he  wins. 

As  usual  in  the  plays  at  large,  various  other 
representative  notions  are  vented:  his  view  of  the 
treatment  of  animals,  for  example;  Keegan  has 


118  BERNARD  SHAW 

a  St.  Francis  tenderness  towards  the  ass  and  the 
grasshopper;  he  pays  his  compliments  to  militar- 
ism ;  and,  returning  to  the  mood  of  "  The  Man  of 
Destiny,"  Shaw  draws  for  us  with  a  pen  dipped 
in  gall  his  idea  of  the  typical  Britisher.  (I  refer 
to  the  Preface,  pp.  38-9.)  The  reason  that 
Shaw  is  anything  but  a  pessimist  is,  that  he  al- 
ways believes  things  will  be  meliorated,  and  more- 
over offers  a  modus  operandi,  namely,  socialism; 
we  may  take  it  or  leave  it,  as  we  will;  there  it 
is,  all  explained,  his  way  out  of  the  woods. 
Those  who  are  fond  of  calling  him  pessimist,  are 
deafened  by  his  continual  vociferation  about  the 
things  that  are  wrong;  and  so  do  not  hear  the 
constructive  part  of  his  message. 

That  part  of  the  Preface  devoted  to  a  descrip- 
tion and  arraignment  of  the  Denshawai  Horror, 
as  a  piece  of  satiric  invective  deserves  to  stand 
beside  Stevenson's  "  Letter  to  Father  Damien." 
It  is  a  wonderfully  eloquent  bit  of  English  prose. 
We  also  have  beautifully  expressed,  at  the  play's 
end,  Shaw's  political,  or  politico-religious  ideal 
in  the  mystic  speech  of  Father  Keegan.  It  is  a 
clear  example  of  the  spiritual  conception  of  so- 
ciety which  Shaw  treasures. 


"  PASSION,  POISON,  PETRIFACTION  "     119 

Passion,  Poison,  and  Petrifaction 

Or,  to  give  it  the  full  title,  "  Passion,  Poison, 
and  Petrifaction,  or  The  Fatal  Gazogene,  An 
Extravaganza."  This  bit  of  burlesque  nonsense 
in  the  author's  most  rollicking  mood  of  high 
jinks  was  written  in  1905,  and  produced  on 
July  14  of  that  year,  in  a  booth  in  Hyde  Park, 
London,  by  Cyril  Maude,  for  whom  it  was  done; 
the  occasion  being  a  fair  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Actors'  Orphanage.  It  may  be  read  with  joy  for 
what  it  is:  a  piece  of  fooling  by  a  man  whose 
serious  moods  are  sufficiently  frequent  and  who 
believes  that  the  Roman  writer  was  right  in  say- 
ing that  it  is  wise  to  be  silly  at  the  fitting  time. 
Nothing  is  funnier  about  this  production,  which 
is  not  likely  to  be  put  into  his  final  and  definitive 
works,  than  the  fact  of  its  origin  in  a  true 
story  told  by  the  author  to  the  children  of  Wil- 
liam Archer.  It  concerned  a  cat  who  by  mis- 
take lapped  up  a  saucer  of  plaster  of  paris  in- 
stead of  milk,  and  thereupon  became  petrified, 
and  was  used  to  prop  against  a  recalcitrant 
door !  It  is  a  comment  on  the  vogue  of  Shaw  to 
know  that  even  this   trifle-of-occasion  has   been 


120  BERNARD  SHAW 

produced    with    praise    and    taken    seriously    in 
Vienna ! 

Major  Barbara 

Also  in  1905  was  written  and  produced 
another  of  the  abler  and  more  distinctive  plays: 
"  Major  Barbara,"  which  had  its  first  night  at 
The  Court  Theatre,  London,  November  28.  For 
some  years  it  was  not  ranked  among  the  prac- 
tically successful  dramas  of  Shaw,  but  the  first 
American  production  of  the  play  by  Miss  Grace 
George  at  The  Playhouse,  New  York,  during  the 
season  of  1915-6,  justifies  the  opinion  that  it  will 
eventually  take  its  place  with  real  stage  favor- 
ites, as  it  certainly  will  as  a  brilliant  example  of 
the  Shavian  style,  skill,  and  interpretation.  Its 
failure  to  make  an  immediate  strong  appeal  can 
be  explained.  The  play  has  been  called  "  a  dis- 
cussion in  three  acts,"  and  this  criticism  gives 
the  reason.  In  a  later  chapter  I  take  up  the 
general  question  of  the  place  of  dialogue  drama, 
and  its  legitimacy;  let  it  suffice  here  to  say  that 
in  "  Major  Barbara  "  plot  is  not  the  main  thing, 
idea  being  paramount,  and  characters  as  ex- 
pository of  idea.     If  the  play  be  static,  it  is  so 


"MAJOR  BARBARA"  121 

only  in  the  sense  of  story  progression ;  em- 
phatically, it  develops  as  to  characters  and 
theme.  In  that  sense,  it  is  truly  progressive, 
and  has  what  might  be  called  the  logic  of  con- 
struction. It  possesses  the  highest  unity  of  all, 
the  unity  of  idea;  not  material  order  so  much,  as 
what  M.  Hamon  calls  "  ordonnance  intellectuel." 
Thus,  it  is  not  "  dramatic,"  as  that  word  is 
usually  understood.  And  it  is  probable  that  for 
some  time  to  come  most  Anglo-Saxons  will  sit 
puzzled,  uneasy,  if  not  repelled  before  a  play 
where  the  clash  of  ideas  furnishes  the  struggle 
instead  of  some  trick  of  complication. 

As  to  story,  the  play  is  centrally  concerned 
with  the  changed  attitude  brought  about  in 
Major  Barbara,  of  the  Salvation  Army,  by  the 
acts  and  arguments  of  her  father,  Mr.  Under- 
shaft,  millionaire  maker  of  destructive  weapons 
of  war;  she  is  made  to  see  that  this  great  re- 
ligious movement,  which  preaches  poverty  as  a 
virtue,  cannot  exist  without  money,  and  that 
poverty  is  the  prime  social  sin.  She  is  converted 
to  her  father's  factory  and  will  marry  her  lover, 
as  she  frankly  tells  him,  because  he  consents  to 
enter    the    works     and    help    make    explosives; 


v^ 


^ 


%^ 


122  BERNARD  SHAW 

thereby  carrying  the  logic  of  destruction  to  its 
extreme,  helping  to  exterminate  war  in  the  end. 
The  interest  here,  or  main  interest,  ignoring  the 
side  plot  of  the  relation  of  Barbara's  sister 
Sarah  and  Lomax,  is  in  watching  how  her  father's 
daughter  comes  to  see  his  point  of  view,  and  in- 
cidentally to  secure  a  husband;  and  the  second  is 
entirely  subordinate  to  the  first. 

What  does  the  drama  aim  to  do?  This  is  a 
question  it  is  always  well  to  ask  before  deciding 
what  it  does.  Does  it  purpose  primarily  to  give 
a  picture  of  a  people's  religion,  and  show  its 
wrong  attitude  towards  poverty  and  the  place  of 
money  in  this  world?  The  depiction  of  Salva- 
tionism,  be  it  noted,  is  not  hostile,  nor  unfair; 
full  justice  is  done  to  the  splendid  work  for  the 
submerged  tenth  wrought  by  the  organization. 
But  it  looks  as  if  Shaw  were  looking  more 
broadly  beyond  this  specific  activity  or  using  it 
in  order  to  discuss  and  ventilate  the  tremendous 
problems  of  poverty  and  crime,  in  their  relation 
to  capitalism  and  all  that  word  implies.  The  un- 
employed, the  proletariat,  and  the  rich  by  so- 
called  tainted  money,  are  in  the  purview.  To 
make  a  drama  out  of  such  material  these  large 


"MAJOR  BARBARA'*  123 

issues  must  be  connected  in  some  way  with  a  nar- 
rower personal  complication;  Barbara's  person- 
ality and  fate  offer  this  to  some  extent,  but  per- 
haps not  sufficiently  to  make  the  chief  interest. 
Plot,  in  other  words,  is  less  to  the  fore  than  in 
such  plays  as  "  Candida,"  "  Arms  and  the  Man," 
and  "  The  Devil's  Disciple."  Concede  this,  and 
strong  claims  to  a  popular  appeal  may  be  made 
for  the  piece.     Its  acting  value  is  surprising. 

We  are  shown  a  family  in  its  interrelations: 
two  daughters  engaged  to  be  married;  a  wife 
estranged  from  her  husband;  one  daughter  at 
outs  with  her  father;  a  son  who  is  recalcitrant. 
But  the  tangle  does  not  center  in  the  readjust- 
ment of  any  of  these  relations.  On  the  contrary, 
these  relations  are  used  to  show  their  respective 
points  of  view,  and  to  compare  three  of  them: 
the  Barbara  view,  the  Undershaft  view,  and  the 
view  of  society.  The  major  conflict  is  between 
Barbara  and  her  father.  But  which  view  wins.? 
This  is  important,  for,  according  to  the  estab- 
lished superiority  of  one  of  them,  is  the  inten- 
tion of  the  author  revealed,  his  argument  il- 
lustrated. Frankly,  the  answer  is  not  so  easy. 
Barbara's  view  can  hardly  be  called  victorious, 


124  BERNARD  SHAW 

for  she  shifts  her  position  through  the  influence 
of  her  father;  she  comes  to  see  that  the  Salva- 
tion Army  must  use  capitalist  money,  and  not 
talk  nonsense  about  poverty  as  a  virtue.  The 
mother,  representing  society,  is  not  victor,  be- 
cause she  is  only  partially  reconciled  with  her 
husband.  If  any  one's  logic  of  life  is  established, 
it  is  Undershaf t's ;  although  he  modifies  his  atti- 
tude sufficiently  to  convince  his  family,  he  con- 
quers, after  all,  for  the  rest  practically  accept 
his  position:  his  wife  in  her  liking  of  the  gun- 
works,  when  she  visits  them,  and  in  her  yielding 
her  children  to  his  employment;  Barbara,  be- 
cause she  adapts  her  work  spiritually  to  what 
her  father  has  taught  her.  Undershaft  wins, 
money  talks,  the  man  who  invents  killing  ma- 
chines is  cock  of  the  walk.  The  conflict  between 
Barbara  and  Undershaft  as  types,  or  embodi- 
ments of  view, — that  is  the  play  in  essence,  its 
deepest  dramatic  cause  for  being.  But  granting 
this  idea,  in  the  light  of  the  writer's  teaching  in 
general  there  is  puzzle.  As  usual,  we  find  Shaw 
facing  facts,  as  they  seem  to  him,  whether  pleas- 
ant or  not.  The  Salvation  Army  must  take 
"  tainted  "  money,  since,  if  traced  to  its  source, 


"JV^AJOR  BARBARA"  125 

most  money  will  be  found  to  be  "  tainted."  The 
Undershaft  type  of  man  in  modern  society  is  re- 
spected, prized,  awarded  the  prizes.  He  is  of  the 
race  of  the  Gatlings,  Colts,  Krupps,  Nobels.  It 
were  hypocrisy  to  deny  this. 

And  what  of  money,  Shakspere's  "  saint  seduc- 
ing gold".^  Is  it  the  root  of  all  evil.^^  Shaw 
would  reverse  the  idea,  declaring  it  the  root  of 
all  good  and  the  state  resulting  from  its  absence, 
^  poverty,  to  be  the  arch  social  sin,  as  I  have  said. 
Socially,  ^and  that  is  always  the  touchstone  for 
Shaw,  this  might  be  accepted  without  qualifica- 
tion. Money,  regarded  as  stored-up  labor,  is 
indeed  the  prime  requisite  for  progress  and  a  ra- 
tional social  life.  Why,  then,  does  one  have  an 
uneasy  feeling  that  there  is  something  wrong  in 
the  argument  of  Major  Barbara?  Something 
seemingly  at  variance  with  Shaw's  recognized 
position  on  war  and  sympathy  with  the  under 
dog  in  the  social  struggle?  Possibly  because 
there  is  such  a  strong  smack  of  the  Nietzschean 
overman  about  Undershaft.  One  rebels  at  his 
denial  of  kindness,  love,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Christian  virtues,  knowing  how  often  they  are  ex- 
ercised and  commended  by  Shaw.    Nor  is  it  quite 


126  BERNARD  SHAW 

an  escape  from  the  difficulty  if  we  say  that 
Undershaft  is  not  Shaw,  but  a  dramatically  ob- 
jectified vieAvpoint.  Again,  we  know  our  Shaw 
too  well.  The  trouble  arises,  I  believe,  in  the 
mixture  of  two  views:  the  social  and  the  in- 
dividual, a  blend  also  to  be  found  in  "  Man  and 
Superman."  To  put  it  more  plainly,  when  Ber- 
nard Shaw  is  offering  a  social  panacea,  his  angle 
of  vision  is  different  from  what  it  is  when  he  is 
studying  a  character.  He  might  not,  for  in- 
stance, approve  of  the  application  of  Under- 
^  shaft's  convictions  to  society  at  large;  but  he 
cannot  for  the  life  of  him  keep  from  liking  the 
maker  of  explosives  as  a  man;  since  he  is  strong, 
sincere,  looks  facts  in  the  face,  states  them 
courageously,  though  they  run  counter  to  the  ac- 
cepted polite  ideas,  and  is  economically  a  boon  to 
the  community  in  his  model  business  organism; 
one  who  believes  and  illustrates  that  intelligently 
organized  industry  is  at  the  bottom  of  social 
progress.  All  this  is  heartily  harmonious  with 
the  Shavian  doctrine. 

But  if  this  explanation  be  entirely  correct,  it 
still  remains  likely  that  the  drama  as  a  whole 
will  in  some  respects  baffle  even  the  thoughtful 


"MAJOR  BARBARA'*  127 

follower,  and  still  more  the  impatient  public 
which  takes  its  theatre  on  the  run.  At  times, 
there  is  an  effect  of  making  a  point  strongly  at 
the  expense  of  other  points.  But  as  to  that,  it 
is  Shaw's  way. 

Technically,  the  play  has  exceptional  scenic 
values.  The  first  act  alone  strikingly  supports 
this  statement.  For  characterization  flowering 
in  fit  and  happy  dialogue,  it  is  also  notable;  in 
the  latter  particular,  the  author  has  hardly  ex- 
celled it  in  any  other  piece  from  his  pen.  The 
opening  exposition  with  its  so-rapid  tempo,  the 
curtain  effect  of  the  off-stage  music  in  act  one, 
and  the  tension  secured  by  the  powder  shed  in 
act  third  will  interest  all  who  are  watchful  for 
technical  achievements  in  the  playhouse.  If 
Lady  Cicely  be  Shaw's  most  winsome  heroine, 
Barbara  is,  I  verily  believe,  his  finest.  In  her  we 
see  a  noble  specimen  of  the  author's  ideal  of 
womanly  possibilities  in  the  modern  social  set- 
ting; she  evokes  Wordsworth's  description: 

"  I  saw  her  upon  nearer  view 
A  Spirit,  yet  u   Woman  too. 


128  BERNARD  SHAW 

A  perfect  Woman,  nobly  planned 
To  warn,  to  comfort  and  command; 
And  yet  a  Spirit  still,  and  bright 
With  something  of  an  angel-light,^^ 

Barbara  has  depth,  breadth,  and  height;  she 
thinks  strongly,  feels  sensitively,  and  hitches 
her  wagon  to  a  star.  But  she  has  the  fourth  di- 
mension too, — charm.  Her  femininity  is  not 
lost  in  strength,  practicality,  or  professional 
moral  purpose.  She  is  real,  yet  an  ideal;  can 
character  creation  further  go?  Barbara  is  a 
very  solid  and  fine  achievement  in  dramatic 
realization.  The  climax  of  her  teaching  is  to  do 
right  for  its  own  sake,  without  bribes;  and  her 
high  words  come  forth  from  her  woman's  mouth 
with  a  thrilling  insistence: 

"  I  have  got  rid  of  the  bribe  of  bread.  I  have 
got  rid  of  the  bribe  of  heaven.  Let  God's  work 
be  done  for  its  own  sake;  the  work  he  had  to 
create  us  to  do  because  it  cannot  be  done  except 
by  living  men  and  women." 

One  feels  instinctively  that  Emerson  would 
have  liked  that. 


"THE  DOCTOR'S  DILEMMA"         129 

The  Doctor's  Dilemma 

This  powerful  and  in  many  ways  debatable 
drama  was  penned  in  the  summer  and  autumn  of 
1906,  produced  at  The  Court  Theatre,  London, 
November  20  of  the  same  year,  at  the  Deutsches 
Theater,  Berlin,  in  1908,  and  not  seen  in  the 
United  States  until  the  season  of  1914-5,  the 
date  being  March  29,  and  the  place  Wallack's 
Theatre,  Granville  Barker  making  the  play  a 
leading  feature  of  his  successful  New  York  sea- 
son. From  the  first  the  drama  was  sharply 
criticized,  its  supposed  attack  upon  or  showing 
up  of  the  medical  profession  naturally  awaken- 
ing indignant  protest  and  opposition. 

It  was  attacked  both  as  art  and  life.  As  art, 
because  it  was  said  to  be  undramatic  in  texture 
and  fantastically  improbable  in  subject-matter; 
as  life  because,  so  its  opponents  declared,  it  was 
an  unwarranted  and  absurd  onslaught  upon  the 
healing  clan. 

It  is  illuminating  to  know  that  the  theme  of 
the  piece  was  suggested  by  an  incident  observed 
by  the  author;  the  doctor's  dilemma  was  taken 
direct  from  life,  since  a  physician  actually  had 


ISO  BERNARD  SHAW 

to  make  a  choice  between  giving  a  hospital  bed 
to  a  gifted  but  morally  contemptible  person  or 
to  another  who,  of  excellent  character,  was  not 
a  genius.  To  frame  this  stimulating  query, 
which  is  really  a  casuistical  question,  Shaw 
shows  us  the  menage  Dubedat:  the  lovely  wife 
devoted  to  her  erring,  fascinating  husband,  be- 
lieving in  him  blindly;  the  artist  himself,  deb- 
onair, living  by  the  esthetic  ideal,  and  quite  im- 
pervious to  the  common  notions  of  marital  and 
financial  honor;  and  the  doctor  who  must  choose 
whether  to  save  this  brilliant  rascal  at  the  ex- 
pense of  his  worthy  but  commonplace  doctor 
friend;  the  problem  being  further  very  much 
complicated  through  the  additional  fact  that 
said  physician  loves  Dubedat's  spouse,  and  so 
has  a  selfish  reason  for  wishing  him  removed. 

As  a  conception,  it  may  be  seen  this  is  first- 
class  dramatic  material.  But  does  the  nature  of 
the  subject  debar  it  from  artistic  handling? 
And  more,  does  the  particular  way  in  which 
Shaw  handles  it  result  in  bad  art?  To  hear  this 
drama  played  is  to  realize  that  it  contains  some 
of  the  finest  things  in  all  his  play-making:  j^et, 
also,  to  be  baffled  by  details   of  treatment  and 


*'THE  DOCTOR'S  DILEMMA"  131 

perhaps  offended  by  them.  Shaw  breaks  conven- 
tional rules  here,  but  in  doing  so  is  as  far  as  pos- 
sible from  being  dull  or  mal-expert.  As  a  stage 
story,  "  The  Doctor's  Dilemma "  is  much  su- 
perior to  "  John  Bull's  Other  Island "  and 
"  Major  Barbara."  Growth,  suspense,  climax, 
are  all  supplied  and  cleverly  manipulated.  The 
characterization  of  the  group  of  doctors  is  re- 
markable for  differentiation  into  types,  each  dis- 
tinct as  he  is  amusing  and  suggestive.  In  com- 
plete contrast  is  the  study  of  the  esthete  hus- 
band, whose  credo  is  UArt  pour  VArt;  he  alone 
would  remove  the  play  from  the  category  of  the 
commonplace.  He  is  a  wonderful  picture  of  a 
kind  of  human  being  whom  we  must  recognize  as 
existing  and  to  be  reckoned  with.  Shaw's  por- 
trait is  as  true  and  penetrating  as  anything  in 
print  concerning  the  irresponsible  Bohemian  and 
nowhere  does  the  dramatist  show  himself  more 
the  artist  than  in  drawing  him ;  for  he  abhors  the 
type  represented  by  Louis,  all  his  instincts  and 
habits  being  against  it ;  yet  as  a  dramatist  he  so 
objectifies  the  treatment  as  to  create  in  the 
death  scene  a  deep  sympathy  for  the  artist  who 
dies  true  to  his  ideals  as  he  sees  them.     A  plucky 


132  BERNARD  SHAW 

Pagan  gets  justice  from  a  reformatory  Puritan! 
This  scene,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  one  to  point  to 
when  it  is  claimed  that  Shaw's  figures  are  always 
Shaw.  There  is  no  more  striking  proof  of  his 
power  and  of  its  unusual  quality. 

Hardly  less  fine  for  portraiture  is  the  wife  in 
her  adoring  trust,  her  blindness  to  Louis's  true 
nature.  How  superb  the  irony  of  her  idealiza- 
tion of  him  after  his  death.  She  is  an  exquisitely 
right  piece  of  drawing;  there  is  a  suggestion  at 
the  end  that  she  hits  closest  to  the  truth  about 
her  husband,  after  all.  The  psychology  of  these 
two  is  profound  and  moving.  We  get  from  it 
a  sense  of  the  complex  nature  of  human  beings 
and  the  difficulty  of  deciding  in  questions  of 
character;  and  with  it,  the  suggestion  that  it  is 
creation's  way  to  take  imperfect  vessels  and  use 
them  for  high  purposes,  the  common  water  of 
humanity  is  poured  into  the  Holy  Grail  of  the 
spirit,  and  so  converted  into  mystic  wine. 

Dramatically,  intellectually,  we  have  Bernard 
Shaw  at  his  best:  wit,  humor,  satire,  pathos, 
philosophy,  are  embodied  in  a  dramatic  coil. 
The  ending  has  been  objected  to  as  an  unsatis- 
factorily  flippant  way  to   close   the   treatment; 


"THE  DOCTOR'S  DILEMMA"  133 

the  tag  line,  "  then  it  was  disinterested  murder," 
being  too  obviously  a  theatre  trick.  But  it 
seems  to  me  this  is  more  than  a  coup;  it  is 
not  only  a  clever  line  coming  out  of  the  situa- 
tion, but  also  one  natural  to  Dr.  Ridgeon,  who 
speaks  it,  while  it  throws  light  on  the  plot. 
Ridgeon,  being  in  love  with  Louis's  wife,  allowed 
this  to  obscure  for  him  the  ethical  issue.  The 
moment  the  wife  reveals  to  him  that  she  has  mar- 
ried again,  her  "  my  husband ! "  makes  the 
spiritual  test  clear  to  him,  and  his  declaration  of 
"  disinterested  murder "  is  a  flashlight  on  his 
mental  processes,  justifying  him  to  himself.  It 
is  theatre  effectivism  used  in  the  cause  of  sound 
psychology  and  a  high  purpose. 

But  what  of  the  main  intention,  the  showing 
up  of  the  medical  profession?  To  begin  with, 
we  must  concede  that  the  way  of  doing  it  is  the 
now  familiar  Shavian  method  of  overemphasis 
for  the  sake  of  making  the  point.  Hit  the  nail, 
hit  it  hard  and  ringingly,  and  never  mind  the 
surrounding  wood!  To  get  his  meaning,  we 
must,  as  we  have  seen,  grant  this  method  to 
Shaw.  It  is  a  concession  to  a  temperament — call 
it   Celtic,   if  that  helps, — which  believes   too  in- 


134  BERNARD  SHAW 

tensely    not    to    get    heated    by    its    own    move- 
ment. 

With  this  understood,  there  is  much  of  truth 
in  the  picture.  To  put  it  scholastically,  if  there 
be  suppressio  veri  here,  there  is  no  expressio  falsi; 
and  the  unconscious  suppression  of  truth,  though 
misleading,  is  not  vicious.  More  than  half  a  cen- 
tury ago  in  America,  a  physician  who  also  hap- 
pened to  have  the  writing  gift,  Dr.  Holmes, 
pointed  out  the  chicanery  and  pretense  of  that 
calling;  Shaw  does  it  later  and  is  no  whit  harder 
on  the  craft  than  was  "  The  Autocrat  of  the 
Breakfast  Table."  One  has  only  to  read  the 
Preface  to  see  that  he  respects  and  appreciates 
the  noble  men  who  serve  man's  body;  he  simply 
draws  attention  to  the  profession's  dangers  as 
now  conducted;  and  suggests  state  control  as  a 
remedy,  as  one  might  expect  the  socialist  to  do. 
Since  the  play  appeared,  municipal  doctors  have 
become  a  fact  in  London.  The  idea  is,  that  to 
make  a  man's  selfish  interests  unrestrainedly  co- 
incide with  an  easy  line  of  conduct  is  subjecting 
him  to  a  strain  too  great  to  be  advisable.  A 
physician's  view  of  the  argument  should  not  be 
taken  exclusively,  any  more  than  a  soldier's  view 


"THE  DOCTOR'S  DILEMMA"  135 

of  war;  both  are  too  much  concerned  in  the  re- 
sult, it  is  hard  for  them  to  be  dispassionate.  No 
profession  fails  to  find  perfectly  honest  argu- 
ments in  its  own  favor.  If  you  doubt  it,  talk  with 
a  brewer.  The  notion  that  the  state  or  city 
should  regulate  medicine  is  part  of  the  enlight- 
ened thought  of  our  day;  it  is  suggestively 
touched  upon  in  Herrick's  novel,  "  The  Healer." 
Shaw  admires  the  individual  doctor  immensely, 
but  feels  that  no  profession  should  be  sub- 
jected to  such  temptation;  it  is  the  system 
that  is  arraigned.  We  hear  the  publicist 
speaking. 

The  absurdities  of  materia  medica  have  shifted 
since  Dr.  Holmes  held  forth  at  their  expense,  al- 
though the  solemn  pretense  of  Latin  prescrip- 
tions is  still  with  us ;  Shaw  attacks  what  is  cur- 
rent, and  with  ungloved  fists.  Most  of  us  have 
become  more  or  less  disillusioned  at  the  mistakes 
which  go  under  the  name  of  science;  yet  most  of 
us  also  cling  to  the  fact  that  the  trained  physi- 
cian is  a  man  of  science  where  we  are  laymen,  and 
a  very  helpful  one  in  time  of  trouble.  But 
Shaw  has  his  fun  at  the  mistakes.  The  modern 
medic  sniffs  at  blood-letting  but  perhaps  makes  a 


136  BERNARD  SHAW 

fetish  of  blood  pressure;  he  urges  the  once  for- 
bidden fresh  air  upon  pneumonia  patients. 
Cereals  are  a  fad  in  one  decade  to  be  described 
as  only  fit  for  animals  in  the  next.  The  diagnosis 
of  one  specialist  is  absolutely  denied  by  another. 
Half  of  our  friends  are  alive  because  they  went 
about  their  business  and  thrived  after  the  doom- 
promising  prognosis  of  some  high-priced  leech. 
It  is  small  wonder  that  Christian  Science  has 
flourished.  There  is  ground  enough  in  these 
things  to  enable  a  satirist  to  walk  with  a  firm 
tread.  Yet  it  would  seem  as  if  Shaw  went  alto- 
gether too  far  when  he  scorns  vaccination  and 
all  its  works.  His  mystic  streak  certainly  be- 
comes tyrannously  prominent  when  he  will  have 
none  of  the  germ  theory  of  disease.  His  most 
definite  condemnation  of  vivisection  is  contained 
in  this  drama  and  its  illuminating  introduction. 
Here,  the  matter  is  more  debatable,  of  course. 
The  writer's  passionate  hatred  of  the  taking  of 
brute  life  and  his  vegetarian  habit  come  into 
the  reckoning.  The  fine  moral  ring  of  the  atti- 
tude, whether  right  or  wrong,  wins  respect. 
Ethically,  it  is  hard  to  rebut  the  argument  that 
it  is  a  wrong  way  to  eliminate  disease,  (conceding 


"THE    DOCTOR'S    DILEMMA"         137 

that  vivisection  produces  that  result,  which  Shaw 
denies),  to  behave  dishonorably  toward  our  fel- 
low creatures,  the  animals.  With  the  rapid  ad- 
vance of  modern  thought  it  is  becoming  a  some- 
what rococo  use  of  the  intellect  to  declare  that 
since  the  brutes  have  no  souls  and  no  future,  we 
have  a  right  to  torture  them  in  the  alleged  inter- 
ests of  science. 

There  seems  to  be  at  times  an  almost  mediaeval 
rejection  of  the  achievements  of  modern  science 
in  Shaw,  a  fairly  astonishing  thing,  coming  from 
one  who  in  some  ways  is  so  hardheadedly  con- 
temporaneous. But  looking  aside  from  the 
mystic  strain  referred  to,  it  may  also  be  said  that 
we  get  here  not  so  much  the  rejection  of  science 
as  a  protest  against  the  absurdly  hasty  claims 
to  scientific  accuracy  and  finality  in  an  empirical 
field,  where  too  often  pseudo-science  goes  strut- 
ting as  final  truth.  The  induction  in  this  vast 
and  changing  field  of  knowledge  is  still  incom- 
plete. Nor  is  this  to  deny  the  marvelous  ad- 
vances, especially  in  the  domain  of  surgery. 
Nevertheless,  it  may  well  be  that  just  now  we  are 
a  little  taken  with  Bacteria;  if  the  B.  B.  way  of 
using  opsonin  seem  farcical,  it  is  only  stage  en- 


138  BERNARD  SHAW 

largement    of    the    truth,    like    the    relation    of 
caricature  to  the  human  face. 

In  this  drama,  then,  improbable  as  to  incident 
and  intrigue  though  it  may  be,  there  is  impres- 
sive psychological  truth,  and  the  verities  of  char- 
acter are  not  tampered  with.  The  curious  scene 
of  the  artist's  death  reveals  the  author  in  his 
strength,  but  also  in  a  weakness  which  is  the  de- 
fect of  his  quality.  He  attempts  what  is  well-nigh 
impossible — in  the  playhouse.  He  treats  a  death 
with  the  mingled  pathos  and  sardonic  humor 
doubtless  juxtaposed  occasionally  by  the  vast 
indifference  of  Nature,  since  she  is  a  lady  who 
manifests  a  total  lack  of  the  sense  of  humor  her- 
self. But  that  life  does  this,  is  no  sure  certificate 
for  art ;  and  wonderful  as  this  scene  is,  it  remains 
questionable,  because  of  its  failure  to  be  sen- 
sitively aware  that  some  things  should  not  be 
placed  together.  There  is  an  element  of  resent- 
ful pain  when  the  gravity  of  death  and  the 
levity  of  man  are  sharply  set  side  by  side;  such 
violent  fellowship  gives  one  an  odd  sense  of  un- 
fitness. The  continence  of  art  is  not  quite  con- 
served, one  feels.  Perhaps  this  is  why  so  original 
a  play,  and  one  of  decided  acting  value,  has  not 


"  INTERLUDE  AT  THE  PLAYHOUSE  "     139 

been  liked  so  well  as  many  others.  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  death  was  inserted  on  a 
challenge  from  Mr.  A.  B.  Walklej,  who  meant  it 
as  a  charge  of  limitation;  he  believed  Shaw's  art 
wavered  before  a  fundamental  crisis  of  life.  In 
short,  the  scene  was  written  as  a  vindication  and 
partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  tour  de  force.  Yet 
when  all  is  said,  it  remains,  in  its  strange,  half- 
fascinating,  half-repellent  way,  one  of  the  most 
powerful  and  compelling  pieces  of  dramatic  writ- 
ing in  a  generation.  The  fact  that  the  story  is 
hardly  started  in  the  first  act  is  no  fault  in 
"  The  Doctor's  Dilemma,"  since  the  object  is  to 
give  a  full-length  series  of  portraits  and  create 
the  proper  atmosphere  in  which  the  story  is  later 
to  breathe  and  have  its  being.  We  have  seen 
the  same  first-act  treatment  in  "  The  Devil's 
Disciple." 

The  Interlude  at  The  Playhouse 

This  was  written  for  Cyril  Maude  at  the 
opening  of  his  new  theatre.  The  Playhouse, 
January  28,  1907,  and  was  published  in  The 
Daily  Mail  of  London  the  next  day.     It  served 


140  BERNARD  SHAW 

as  Prologue  to  introduce  the  main  piece,  "  Tod- 
dles," and  showed  the  wife  of  a  manager  pleading 
to  the  audience  in  behalf  of  her  husband  who  is 
embarrassed  at  having  to  make  a  speech.  It  is 
a  sparkling  bit  and  not  without  its  point  in  hint- 
ing the  differentiating  advantages  of  sex. 

Getting  Married 

Whatever  its  appeal  as  play,  "  Getting  Mar- 
ried "  is  one  of  the  more  important  items  in 
Shaw's  catalogue  judged  for  its  intellectual  sig- 
nificance. It  was  written  in  1908,  and  first  pro- 
duced at  The  Haymarket,  London,  May  12, 
1908.  The  drama  is  preceded  by  a  long  Preface, 
one  of  the  most  elaborate  he  has  sent  forth,  and 
a  thoroughly  characteristic  effort  for  keenness, 
wit,  and  whimsical  indulgence  in  paradox  and 
overstatement.  The  play  itself  is  a  discussion  in 
one  scene  and  a  continuous  performance  (with 
the  author's  consent,  it  was  performed  with  two 
intermissions)  of  a  social  problem  of  vital  im- 
port. The  form  chosen  is  of  interest  in  view  of 
the  author's  reference  to  it  as  an  experimental 
extended   use   of  the   one-act  drama.      The   fact 


"GETTING  MARRIED'*  141 

that  Shaw  selected  such  a  mould  indicates  the 
nature  of  the  play;  a  single  situation  presented 
without  conventional  plot  development,  for  the 
sake  of  exhibiting  the  reactions  of  character  in 
a  crisis  which  illustrates  an  argument.  The 
writer  desires  to  show  the  confused  and  to  him 
ridiculous  condition  of  the  present  marriage  laws 
and  ideals ;  and  to  that  end,  marshals  a  number 
of  couples  who  stand  for  the  main  varieties  of 
the  workings  of  such:  a  young  pair  who  are  go- 
ing into  marriage  without  realizing  its  limita- 
tions and  are  checked  at  the  threshold  by  one  of 
its  many  absurdities ;  a  high-class  old  maid  and 
uxorious  bachelor;  a  typical  menage  a  trois  in 
Leo,  Regy,  and  Hotchkiss ;  a  typical  celibate, 
Soames;  an  example  in  the  bishop  and  his  spouse 
of  a  couple  well  along  in  life  who  have  weathered 
the  storms,  and  incline  to  take  things  as  they 
are ;  a  much  married  man,  Collins ;  and,  most 
original  of  all  this  piquant  assemblage  of  the 
matrimonially  entangled,  Mrs.  George,  the  May- 
oress, who  with  Hotchkiss  seems  to  suggest 
the  frequent  irregularities  which  exist  beneath 
the  apparent  smug  respectability  of  the  usual 
union. 


142  BERNARD  SHAW 

By  bringing  together  this  group,  so  remark- 
able for  contrast  and  saliency,  and  by  brilliant 
dialogue  and  arresting  scene,  Shaw  keeps  us  in- 
terested and  amused  while  he  rams  home  his 
views.  There  is  a  central  interest  in  the  ques- 
tion whether  Edith  and  her  man  will  or  will 
not  get  themselves  married;  the  play  has  its 
dramatic  validity  just  there.  And  an  effect  of 
climax  is  secured  when  they  finally  take  the  mat- 
ter into  their  own  hands  and  have,  not  the  pub- 
lic ceremony  that  all  had  planned,  but  a  pri- 
vate one.  It  is  not  a  fair  statement  to  say  that 
the  play  lacks  entirely  in  growth  and  story  at- 
traction. A  juster  way  to  put  it  would  be  to  say 
that  its  thesis  is  plainly  exposed  and  its  method 
that  of  character  caught  in  a  crucial  situation, 
rather  than  carried  along  by  plot.  Given  its 
purpose,  the  technic  is  sound;  that  it  will  never 
be  as  popular  as  other  dramas  from  this  hand 
is  pretty  safe  to  guess ;  the  nature  of  both 
theme  and  handling  forbids  it.  With  an  unusual 
aim,  the  dramatist  chose  an  unusual  method  to 
put  his  ideas  before  an  audience ;  there  was  no 
lack  of  skill  about  it ;  wilfully  Shaw  adopted  his 
procedure   here.      The   play   contains    plenty   of 


"  GETTING  MARRIED  "  143 

proof  of  craftsmanship.  Observe,  for  one  little 
instance,  the  careful  manner  in  which  the  final 
appearance  of  Mrs.  George  is  prepared  for, 
"  planted  "  as  the  phrase  goes,  by  Collins'  talk 
about  her  on  the  first  page.  This  preparation  is 
one  of  the  sure  tests  of  a  genuine  dramatist  and 
the  tyro  constantly  overlooks  it. 

But  the  idea  and  argument  claim  attention. 
The  play  stands  or  falls  by  its  intellectual  inter- 
est.    It  is  a  play  of  ideas,  or  it  is  nothing. 

However  elaborate  the  development  of  the 
thought,  the  author's  position  is  clear.  To  him, 
the  present  marriage  laws  are  bad,  and  the  solu- 
tion is  easy  divorce:  there  it  is,  stated  in  a  sin- 
gle sentence,  and  as  a  thought  sufficiently  shock- 
ing to  many.  Some  think  we  shall  get  rid  of 
marriage  entirely,  projecting  their  dream  far 
ahead  in  time.  Not  so  Shaw.  By  precept  and 
example,  he  shows  we  must  practically,  and  for 
the  present,  preserve  the  institution ;  that  the 
thing  to  do  is  to  improve,  not  abolish  it.  All 
statements  that  his  aim  is  to  destroy  rather  than 
modify,  are  based  on  a  failure  to  read  and  under- 
stand his  words. 

But  there  remain  several  reasons  why  the  play 


144  BERNARD  SHAW 

may  awaken  opposition.  First,  the  levity  of  the 
prevailing  tone;  this,  of  course,  being  typical  of 
the  writer.  The  composition  becomes  the  more 
amusing  by  this  lightness  of  touch  and  hence  bet- 
ter drama;  but  in  so  serious  a  matter,  the  fun 
may  get  in  the  way  of  the  underlying  earnest  in- 
tention, always  a  likely  happening  with  our 
author. 

Then,  there  is  the  unpleasantness  of  the  plain 
speaking.  If  we  are  to  avoid  the  unpleasant  in 
a  dramatist  who  declares  he  can  and  should  no 
more  dodge  giving  pain  than  a  dentist,  then  adieu 
Shaw.  Another  probable  drawback  is  the  de- 
tachment of  the  argument  from  sentiment:  the 
sentiment  which  naturally  and  properly  gathers 
about  the  union  of  two  people  who  love  each 
other.  There  are  times  when  our  sensibilities  are 
jarred  so  that  we  wince.  It  is  the  old  conflict:  a 
warm-hearted,  sentimentally  inclined  man  trying 
to  separate  head  and  heart,  because  he  believes  it 
the  only  way  to  see  clear  on  a  vital  question. 
And  we  must  be  willing  to  be  made  uncomfortable 
with  him. 

But  is  his  contention  true?  The  query  pierces 
to   the   root   of   the   matter.      Allowing  for   the 


"  GETTING  MARRIED  "  145 

Shavian  method  of  perfervid  rhetoric,  overstate- 
ment for  vividness'  sake,  the  picture  of  the 
wrongs  now  existing  in  the  marriage  relation  is 
not  unfairly  drawn.  Logically,  too,  the  remedy 
suggested,  that  of  easy  divorce,  upon  the  com- 
plaint of  either  party  to  the  contract  for  what- 
ever cause,  is  plausible.  The  defect  in  the  reason- 
ing lies  in  the  assumption  of  human  nature  as 
commonly  trustworthy  in  the  premises. 

It  would  work  beautifully  with  Shaw  and  his 
kind  of  normal,  right-minded  folk,  who  have  the 
high  ideals  of  matrimony  which  are  based  upon 
the  sound  belief  that  love  alone  justifies  such 
union.     But  how  would  it  work,  by  and  large? 

For  example:  suppose  a  man  and  woman 
could  get  a  divorce  for  the  asking.  If  one  of 
them  were  a  light  person,  he  or  she  would  in  re- 
sponse to  a  whim  or  because  of  a  penchant  for 
somebody  else,  secure  liberty.  Follow  that  per- 
son and  see  what  happens.  It  is  a  little  difficult 
to  imagine  a  wise  conservation  of  the  interests 
of  the  child  in  such  cases.  The  idea  of  the  open 
door  removing  the  feeling  of  prison  is  sound. 
And,  let  it  be  repeated,  the  fundamental  thought 
of  a  right  union  is  nothing  but  admirable.     If 


146  BERNARD  SHAW 

only  poor  human  nature  could  be  relied  upon  to 
live  up  to  it!  An  ideal,  properly  viewed,  is 
something  not  yet  attained,  but  conceivably  at- 
tainable; perhaps  Shaw's  idea  (an  idea  is  an 
ideal  that  has  arrived)  would  work  as  well  as, 
even  better  than,  the  present  chaotic  fumbling 
towards  readjustment.  So  far,  there  is  not  so 
much  a  plan  as  a  welter.  With  existent  preju- 
dices, the  Shaw  plan  is  not  likely  to  be  tried. 
Meanwhile,  we  can  respect  a  theory  which  aim.s 
so  high,  and  has  such  a  conception  of  humanity. 
There  are  passages  in  this  drama  which  reveal 
Shaw  in  some  of  his  most  effective  and  character- 
istic phases.  His  sense  of  poetry  is  finely 
brought  out  in  the  clairvoyant  speech  of  Mrs. 
George.  And  the  argument  in  the  Preface  that 
woman's  political  enfranchisement  would  materi- 
ally assist  her  in  the  married  relation,  not  only 
affords  a  clear  idea  of  his  feeling  about  suffrage 
(fortified  later  in  "  Press  Cuttings  "),  but  offers 
a  suggestion  to  the  workers  in  that  cause  which 
is  distinctly  valuable. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  PLAYS 

"THE  SHOWING-UP  OF  BLANCO  POSNET  " 
TO    "THE    MUSIC   CURE" 

The  Showing-up  of  Blanco  Posnet 

Written  in  1909,  and  finished  in  March  of 
that  year,  "  The  Showing-up  of  Blanco  Pos- 
net," another  of  the  author's  characteristic 
pieces,  was  produced  at  The  Abbey  Theatre  in 
Dublin,  August  25,  1909,  and  was  played  by  the 
Irish  Players  in  America,  during  the  season  of 
1911-2,  as  well  as  later.  It  was  given  by  The 
Stage  Society  in  London  after  its  Dublin  pre- 
miere, technically  outside  the  law,  for  it  had 
been  censored  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain;  it  was 
afterwards  licensed  by  that  dignitary  on  condi- 
tions so  absurd  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of 
performance,  as  may  be  read  at  the  close  of  the 
Preface  to  the  printed  play. 

This  moving  drama,  which  is  likely  to  be  reck- 
147 


148  BERNARD  SHAW 

oned  with  steadily  as  one  of  the  books  thoroughly 
expressive  of  the  author's  thought,  is  interesting 
in  both  form  and  substance.  It  is  in  that  one- 
act  mould  which  is  so  often  used  in  the  later 
work  of  Shaw  as  to  suggest  that  he  finds  it  con- 
veniently plastic  to  his  mature  purposes.  It  is 
also  unique  among  his  works  in  having  the  United 
States  for  locale,  although  early  America  was 
used  in  "  The  Devil's  Disciple."  So  little  does 
the  author  apparently  care  for  that  superficial 
accuracy  which  is  the  end  of  unimaginative 
"  realists,"  that  he  has  been  anything  but  actual 
in  his  picture  of  Bret  Harte  types  in  their  west- 
ern habitat.  Surely,  if  Shaw  had  sought  an  ef- 
fect of  "  truth  "  in  the  external  sense,  he  would 
not  have  had  his  cowboys  address  each  other  as 
''  old  son  " ;  and  would  have  set  his  scene  right  in 
various  other  particulars  of  speech  or  furniture. 
It  almost  seems  as  if  he  purposely  exhibited  in- 
difference in  such  details,  in  order  to  remind  the 
reader,  or  auditor,  that  the  higher  truth  is  there; 
drawing  attention  to  what  he  is  after.  For  it  is 
there,  beyond  debate;  he  has  never  done  human 
beings  with  more  convincing  psychology,  and 
never  has   spiritual   truth  shone  more   flamingly 


"  BLANCO  POSNET  "  149 

through  the  supposedly  opaque  medium  of  west- 
ern "  bad  men." 

Yet  this  superficial  "  untruth  "  is  such  as  to 
repel  some  critics ;  Professor  Edward  Everett 
Hale,  for  one.  It  might  be  argued  that,  in  a  work 
of  art,  to  dispel  the  illusion  by  inartistic  details, 
which  destroy  verisimilitude,  is  a  sin  against  that 
spirit  of  truth  which  must  lie  behind  the  desired 
result  of  conviction.  "  Conviction  of  sin "  is 
what  Shaw  is  after  in  this  piece.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  an  irresistible  breath  of  spiritual  reality,  I 
feel,  blows  out  from  this  rough  and  ready  depic- 
tion of  primitive  folk.  The  spirit  of  good  which 
is  in  common  man  was  never  brought  out  by 
Shaw  more  forcefully  and  touchingly. 

With  the  true  instinct  of  a  dramatist  aware 
that  a  one-act  piece  must  center  on  the  obli- 
gatory scene  which  is  at  the  heart  of  any  good 
play,  Shaw  presents  his  story  in  terms  of  the 
tense  trial  picture  which  is  the  climax  of  all  that 
has  gone  before;  here  his  method  is  that  of  Ib- 
sen. The  characterization  is  clear,  varied,  con- 
vincing; pictorially,  there  is  great  value  in  the 
court  room  with  its  fringe  of  eager  toughs  sur- 
rounding Blanco  and  the  jury,  broken  in  upon 


150  BERNARD  SHAW 

by  the  women  who  change  the  complexion  of  the 
case.  The  "  bo^^s  "  constitute  a  sort  of  crude 
Greek  chorus,  and  the  individualized  figures  of 
the  sheriff,  the  Elder,  Feemy,  Blanco  himself, 
stand  out  in  high  relief.  The  exposition,  though 
very  direct,  is  plausible  and  skilful.  The  general 
atmosphere  of  a  primitive  community  ruled  by 
the  fundamenal  principles  that  make  human  in- 
tercourse possible  under  any  conditions, — "  re- 
venge is  a  wild  kind  of  justice,"  says  Bacon, — is 
capitally  caught.  For  stage  effectiveness,  the 
piece  must  be  placed  high  up  in  the  Shaw  reper- 
tory; the  Irish  Players  were  not  altogether 
suited  to  it,  and  full  justice  awaits  it  in  the 
hands  of  a  skilful  American  company.  No  exam- 
ple of  his  craft  affords  a  better  chance  to  study 
growth  and  increase  of  tension;  note  how  the 
seeming  climax  is  put  off  by  the  arrival  of  later 
witnesses,  to  make  the  final  effect  the  greater. 
In  external  form,  it  is  frank  melodrama,  with  the 
traditional  good  ending :  Shaw  again  pouring  new 
wine  into  the  old  bottles.  But  melodrama  as  it 
is,  it  is  also  a  psychologic  study  of  which  the 
theme  is  the  dealings  of  God  with  a  human  soul. 
The  conception  of  religion  and  of  God  here 


"BLANCO  POSNET"  151 

makes  one  think  of  Bunyan,  and  the  Salvation 
Army!    Blanco  wants  to  be  wicked,  finds  he  can- 
not; he  prefers  the  company  of  bad  people,  and 
is   afraid   to   be   alone,   because   a   good  person, 
God,  will  get  at  him.     He  has  a  vision,  like  Saul 
of  Tarsus.     The  play  is  a  clear  justification  of 
Chesterton's    remark    that    Shaw   is    a    Puritan; 
not  only  in  his  desire  to  deal  with  moral  prob- 
lems and  reform  his  fellow-men,  but  in  his  con- 
ception  of   the  relation  of  deity  to  dust.      The 
play  is  a  close  companion  to  "  The  Devil's  Disci- 
ple," in  its  insistence  on  doing  good  for  its  own 
sake,  without  ulterior  motive  or  reward.     Poor 
Blanco,  in  fact,  is  puzzled  by  the  kind  of  heav- 
enly trick  which  has  been  played  upon  him;  in 
sharp  contrast  with  him,  doing  right  in  spite  of 
himself  and  for  mystic,  unworldly  reasons,  is  set 
the  elder,  with  his  "  other  worldliness,"  as  George 
Eliot  has  acutely  called  it.     It  is  the  idea  of  man 
caught  in  Stevenson's  phrase,  "  we  are  doomed  to 
some  nobility  " ;  Blanco  does  not  wish  to  be  no- 
ble, but  is  obscurely  pushed  in  that  direction  by 
a  power  greater  than  himself,  dumbly  trusted  by 
this  western  "  tough." 

The    picture    of    Blanco    realizing   that    there 


152  BERNARD  SHAW 

are  two  games  being  played  by  him  (and  by  all 
of  us),  the  devil's  game  and  God's,  to  use  the 
old-fashioned  theologic  nomenclature,  is  painted 
with  broad,  effective  strokes,  in  a  way  to  make 
the  final  scene  with  his  culminating  speech  as  fine 
a  thing  as  the  author  has  ever  given  us,  and  cer- 
tainly one  of  the  moments  in  his  dramatic  writ- 
ing when  we  come  very  close  to  the  essential 
thinker  and  teacher.  If  he  is  ever  serious,  it  is 
here;  if  there  is  a  passage  anywhere  in  his  works 
in  which  Shaw's  social  sympathy  and  his  ideal- 
istic faith  in  the  life-force  is  plainly  stated,  it 
is  when  Blanco  Posnet  harangues  those  rough 
miners  who  are  somewhat  dazed  to  find  the  man 
they  are  about  to  acquit  of  a  death  penalty  sud- 
denly turning  their  judge  and  bringing  them  to 
the  court,  not  of  Judge  Lynch,  but  of  eternal 
justice.  The  dramatic  value  of  his  words  at 
such  a  moment  in  such  a  setting,  needs  only  to 
be  heard  to  be  felt.  It  is  one  of  a  half  dozen 
pronunciamentos  of  the  author  wherein  we  get 
close  to  his  inmost  thought,  and  conviction  and 
hear  the  very  heart-beats  of  his  meaning.  The 
passage  appears  later  in  this  book. 

The  play  has  added  importance  because  of  the 


**  PRESS  CUTTINGS"  153 

acute  analysis  in  the  Preface  of  the  censorship, 
with  all  its  weakness  and  opportunity  for  work- 
ing harm.  Shaw  gives  us  a  fine  plea  for  liberty  in 
Art;  it  belongs  to  the  lineage  of  Milton's  "Areop- 
agitica."  The  writer  shows  himself  a  democrat 
in  his  willingness  to  trust  the  judgment  of  the 
people  rather  than  that  of  any  official:  a  posi- 
tion which  may  easily  be  turned  against  him 
if  we  come  to  consider  his  belief  in  Socialism 
with  its  inevitable  use  of  the  same  officialism. 
But  in  its  setting  here,  it  is  full  of  an  eloquent 
cogency;  the  grotesque  spectacle  of  plays  like 
"  Mrs.  Warren's  Profession  "  and  "  The  Showing- 
up  of  Blanco  Posnet,"  to  say  nothing  of  "  Press 
Cuttings,"  being  debarred  from  licensed  hearing 
in  a  land  that  smiles  complacently  over  the  un- 
draped  vulgarity  and  indecency  of  the  average 
burlesque  and  musical  comedy,  offers  full  oppor- 
tunity for  the  satirist,  and  the  chance  is  taken. 


Press  Cuttings 

This  scintillant  example  of  Shaw's  lighter 
touch  and  mood  was  presented  by  The  Civic  and 
Dramatic   Guild    at   the   Royal    Court   Theatre, 


154  BERNARD  SHAW 

London,  July  9,  1909,  having  been  composed 
during  March  and  April  of  that  year.  It  was 
stopped  because  of  political  references,  and  given 
with  slight  changes  September  27,  at  Man- 
chester. It  shows  the  author  at  his  best  in  the 
one-act  form,  which  lends  itself  especially  to  topi- 
cal treatment  with  the  desired  point  and  brevity. 
It  is  wide  of  the  mark  to  describe  it  (it  has  been 
so  described)  as  an  anti-suffragist  screed;  it  does 
not  give  the  impression  of  for,  or  against.  Not 
a  polemic,  but  a  work  of  art,  it  makes  unbitter, 
non-partisan  fun  of  vulnerable  points  in  the 
armor  of  either  movement  as  it  exposes  itself  to 
the  satirist.  It  would  certainly  be  very  difficult 
to  detect  a  bias  in  Shaw  in  his  depiction  of  Mrs. 
Banger  and  Lady  Corinthia,  antis;  in  making 
sport  of  them,  he  indirectly  might  be  said  to 
praise  their  opponents.  With  a  wider  vision,  he 
looks  beyond  either  party  to  find  his  amusement 
in  human  nature,  as  such.  He  refuses  to  let  us 
catch  him  napping.  At  the  end,  we  find  him  on 
the  side  lines,  amiably  looking  on  at  the  battle 
and  enjojang  all  the  fruits  of  neutrality.  He 
has  had  his  dig  at  masculine  women,  at  women 
who  use  the   sex-pull   for   political  purposes,   at 


*' PRESS  CUTTINGS"  155 

men  who  flatter  themselves  they  rule,  when  woman 
is  really  the  power  behind  their  potherings;  and 
back  of  these  satiric  flings,  the  larger  questions 
of  war  and  peace,  militarism,  and  the  economic 
and  political  relations  of  the  individual  to  gov- 
ernment, are  hit  off  in  a  way  to  make  jocoseria 
carry  an  aftertaste  of  thought.  Mrs.  Farrell 
(another  minor  character  looming  large)  is  as 
masterly  as  she  is  womanly,  to  be  placed  for  suc- 
cess, given  the  lesser  scale,  beside  William  in 
"  You  Never  Can  Tell."  Her  humorsome  com- 
parison between  killing  men  in  war  and  making 
them  again  in  childbed,  with  woman  paying  the 
damages,  is  unforgettable. 

For  sheer  good-hearted  fun,  for  sparkling  dia- 
logue from  the  mouths  of  immensely  enjoyable 
persons,  Shaw  has  never  been  happier.  "  Press 
Cuttings  "  is  a  success  in  its  kind.  It  sets  up 
as  an  avowed  aim  to  secure  merriment  out  of 
the  comic  possibilities  of  current  events  and 
personages :  leaders  like  Asquith  and  Kitchener, 
the  thin  disguise  of  whose  names  cheats  nobody 
out  of  the  pleasure  of  recognition.  It  hardly 
needs  be  said  that  the  genial  use  for  literary 
purposes   of  a  distinguished  figure  like  the  late 


156  BERNARD  SHAW 

Earl  Kitchener  must  be  related  to  the  fact  that 
the  play  was  written  some  years  before  his  death. 
It  is  thoughtful  burlesque,  which  seems  a  new 
genre,  and  the  thought  is  there.  There  is  much 
of  the  Shavian  in  Mitchener's  final  remark  to 
Balsquith: 

"  The  moral  for  you  is,  you've  got  to  give  up 
treating  women  as  angels."  We  at  once  find  the 
author  expressing  a  general  attitude.  It  may  be 
emphasized  that  there  is  a  pairing  off  of  the  cou- 
ples in  conclusion,  as  in  "  Man  and  Superman  " ; 
again,  Shaw  is  frankly  conceding  the  great  pur- 
poses of  Nature,  let  him  (or  another)  scoff  or 
carp  as  he  will. 

Shaw's  sense  of  stage  effects  is  shown  in 
Balsquith's  entrance  disguised  as  a  woman;  noth- 
ing could  be  better  theatrically;  and  the  tele- 
phone talk  of  Mrs.  Farrell  with  her  daughter  is 
so  good  as  to  condone  the  use  of  that  overworked 
instrument.  Seven  years  ago,  when  the  play  was 
written,  the  advantages  of  the  telephone  as  first 
aid  to  the  dramatist  had  not  been  so  freely  ex- 
ploited. So  true  is  it  that  this  admirable  little 
piece  is  not  a  suffragist  manifesto  nor  in  any 
sense  a  propagandist  effort,  that  it  might  better 


"  MISALLIANCE  "  157 

be  described  as  a  satire  on  politics  in  relation  to 
the  military  question,  the  woman  question  natur- 
ally coming  into  the  discussion.  Give  the  army 
civil  rights  and  the  women  votes,  says  the  orderly, 
which  appears  to  be  very  much  the  author's  no- 
tion also.  It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the 
title  with  its  implied  origin  of  the  play  in  the 
daily  press  is  a  part  of  the  satire  of  this  keen 
and  brilliant  presentation  of  current  social  issues. 

Misalliance 

In  the  contention  that  Shaw's  plays  are  not 
plays  at  all  (meaning  that  some  of  them  lack  the 
familiar  play  physiognomy),  this  one-act  piece 
might  be  used  as  a  test  case.  Strictly,  it  isn't 
drama  as  that  word  is  traditionally  used;  for  it 
lacks  story,  direction  toward  climax,  growth, 
climax  itself,  and  conclusion.  And  yet,  reading 
it,  we  are  confronted  with  the  paradox  that  it  is 
intensely  interesting.  Why?  Here  again  one  is 
puzzled  by  the  question  whether  anything  on  the 
stage  in  the  form  of  scene,  dialogue,  and  action 
by  human  beings,  that  holds  the  amused  atten- 
tion of  an  audience,  is  not  properly  to  be  defined 
as  a  play. 


158  BERNARD  SHAW 

"  Misalliance  "  was  written  during  1909-10,  and 
produced  at  the  Haymarket  Theatre,  London, 
February  23  of  the  latter  3^ear.  It  has  not  up 
to  the  present  writing  been  done  professionally 
in  America.  The  author  calls  it  "  a  debate  in 
one  sitting,"  and  a  facetious  chronicler  at  the 
time  of  its  debut  declared  that  the  debating  so- 
ciety is  found  in  a  lunatic  asylum  where,  without 
motion  or  chairman,  the  members  argue  aim- 
lessly and  during  this  irresponsible  talk  the 
Shavian  tenets  respecting  love,  marriage,  and 
the  duty  of  parents  and  children,  especially  the 
former,  are  electrically  set  forth.  It  is  true 
enough  that  the  people  gathered  together  at 
the  country  residence  of  John  Tarleton,  rich 
manufacturer  of  Tarleton  Underwear,  are  not 
ordinary  folk;  one  fairly  gasps  at  their  utter- 
ances, so  far  are  they  away  from  the  convention- 
alized patter  of  the  stage:  the  obvious  replies  to 
obvious  questions  proponed  by  obvious  types  of 
human  beings.  The  elder  Tarleton  himself,  his 
son  Johnny,  Lord  Summerhays,  distinguished  ad- 
ministrator just  home  from  India;  his  son,  the 
delightful  Bentley,  whose  pet  name  of  Bunny  is 
a  revelation  of  his  personality;  Hypatia,  Tarle- 


"MISALLIANCE"  159 

ton's  daughter,  engaged  to  Bentley;  her  mother, 
old-fashioned  and  shrewd,  and  the  ancillary  char- 
acters who  surround  these  central  persons  and 
help  to  solve  the  main  business  of  mating  the 
girl  of  the  house, — such  as  these  are  not  met 
every  day,  in  the  theatre  or  in  life.  One  asks  if 
they  exist,  outside  the  fertile  brain  of  their 
creator,  very  much  as  one  asked  it  of  the  char- 
acters of  Charles  Dickens.  This  can  never  be 
decided  as  a  question  of  science  can  be;  the  per- 
sonal equation  will  settle  it  at  the  last.  Why 
be  too  greatly  concerned  as  to  whether  the  Tarle- 
ton  menage  can  be  duplicated  from  life?  They 
are  monstrously  amusing,  these  folk,  the  words 
they  speak  are  as  mentally  arousing  as  can  be 
found  in  any  stage  dialogue  of  our  time;  and  in- 
cidentally, Shaw  is  enabled  to  vent  many  ideas  on 
domestic  life  and  the  education  of  and  in  the 
home,  which  are  seriously  held  by  him ;  a  fact  the 
farcical  method  of  the  piece  should  not  for  a  mo- 
ment blind  us  to. 

But  does  a  definite  thesis  emerge  from  all  this 
brilliancy  of  epigram  and  thrust  of  whimsical 
argument?  Hardly,  in  the  way  of  dramatic  con- 
cision and  steady   cleaving  to   one  thing.     But, 


160  BERNARD  SHAW 

plainly  enough,  I  think,  the  notion  that  the  life- 
force,  sadly  interfered  with  by  the  silly  conven- 
tions of  domestic  upbringing,  will  seek  its  own,  is 
stated  and  illustrated  in  Hypatia's  turning  from 
the  little  Bunny,  with  brains  and  no  physique,  to 
the  athletic  Percival,  who  biologically  is  so  much 
more  her  suitable  mate.  We  hear  Shaw  again 
saying,  as  in  "  Man  and  Superman,"  that  argue 
and  refine  as  we  may,  Nature  will  act  and  over- 
throw our  plans.  I  believe  this  to  be  after  all 
the  sufficiently  centralizing  theme  or  purpose  of 
a  play  which  should  not  so  much  be  described  as 
wanting  a  story  as  not  choosing  to  make  the 
usual  dramatic  use  of  story  that  is  there.  How- 
ever such  a  drama  may  act,  it  is  a  highly  enjoya- 
ble bit  of  literature,  and  when  a  thoughtful 
theatre  audience  is  homogeneously  ready  for  it, 
likely  to  be  welcome  in  the  repertory. 

The  Dark  Lady  of  the  Sonnets 

Written  in  the  same  year  with  the  foregoing, 
1910,  it  was  also  produced  at  The  Haymarket 
Theatre,  London,  on  November  24,  1910,  Gran- 
ville Barker  playing  Shakspere.    The  subject  was 


*'THE  DARK  LADY  OF  THE  SONNETS"   l6l 

eminently  fitting,  inasmuch  as  it  was  done  on 
the  occasion  of  a  benefit  for  the  proposed  Shak- 
spere  National  Memorial  Theatre.  It  therefore 
aims  to  show  the  master  dramatist  as  the  crier- 
up  of  this  project.  We  get  a  characterization 
of  the  poet  as  novel  as  it  is  amusing,  and  in 
agreement  with  Shaw's  well-known  critical  re- 
marks about  the  elder  playwright.  It  is  a  study 
of  the  literary  type  which  recognizes  alike  its 
weakness  and  strength;  we  observe  the  note-book 
method  of  getting  good  lines  and  valuable  hints 
from  wayfaring  folk  the  bard  may  meet ;  the 
putting  of  letters  before  life;  the  quick  sus- 
ceptibility of  the  artist  to  the  call  of  sex;  the 
bold  matching  of  his  power  as  a  king  of  words 
against  Elizabeth  as  queen  of  men;  and  under- 
neath all  the  badinage,  an  earnest  desire  to 
make  the  sovereign  realize  the  educational  value 
and  significance  of  the  playhouse.  To  declare 
that  this  is  taking  unwarrantable  liberty  with  the 
stock  ideas  of  the  poet  is  nonsense ;  what  do  we 
really  know  of  this  Elizabethan  Englishman? 
The  imputed  qualities  bring  us  nearer  to  the 
man,  which  is  enough.  The  scene  shows  the  poet 
keeping  an  appointment  by  night  with  the  dark 


162  BERNARD  SHAW 

lady  on  a  terrace  at  Whitehall,  and  meeting  the 
Queen  instead,  with  whom  he  boldly  talks. 

The  language  of  the  period  is  cleverly  caught, 
and  there  is  special  piquancy  in  the  thoroughly 
modern  view  couched  in  such  words  as  these: 
"  For  this  writing  of  plays  is  a  great  matter, 
forming  as  it  does  the  minds  and  affections  of 
men  in  such  sort  that  whatsoever  they  see  done 
in  show  on  the  stage,  they  will  presently  be  do- 
ing in  earnest  in  the  world,  which  is  but  a  larger 


The  scenic  effectiveness  and  the  crisp  handling 
of  the  conclusion  add  much  to  the  general  acting 
value  of  this  excellent  example  of  Shaw's  lighter 
manner.  It  may  without  hesitation  be  set  down 
among  his  successes. 

Fanny's  First  Play 

At  a  time  when  it  was  beginning  to  be  said 
that  Shaw  had  lost  his  vogue,  this  drama  rein- 
stated the  dramatist  in  the  favor  of  average 
playgoers.  Moreover,  he  proved  his  power  to  in- 
terest the  light-minded  public  by  the  intrinsic 
appeal    of    his    work    rather    than    by    the    at- 


"FANNY'S  FIRST  PLAY"  163 

traction  of  his  name,  for  this  play,  written 
in  1910-11,  appeared  anonymously  at  The  Cri- 
terion Theatre,  London,  April  18,  1911,  and 
ran  for  nearly  a  year,  when  it  was  transferred 
to  The  Little  Theatre,  then  to  The  Kingsway, 
for  a  further  run;  and  on  being  given  at  The 
Comedy  Theatre,  New  York,  September  16,  1912, 
held  the  stage  there  for  a  season.  In  the  face  of 
these  facts,  it  would  seem  untenable  to  argue 
that  Shaw  has  become  less  effective  as  dramatist 
as  he  has  matured  as  thinker.  His  most  popular 
drama  did  not  have  the  advantage  of  his  reputa- 
tion to  start  it;  and  this  play  is  also  one  of  his 
latest.  It  hits  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  while 
by  no  means  all  of  Shaw's  plays  succeed  in  the 
popular  sense  (who  is  the  dramatist  able  to 
make  such  a  boast?),  yet  at  any  period  of  his 
career  he  is  capable  of  a  stage  success ;  his  more 
serious  thinking,  if  it  can  be  called  such,  has  not 
dulled  his  cleverness,  has  indeed  but  lent  body  to 
increased  expertness.  The  external  history  of 
his  dramatic  development  is  all  against  the  as- 
sumption that  like  Tolstoy,  for  example,  ethics 
and  intellect  have  injured  art.  In  fact,  again 
and  again,  Shaw  has  turned  from  some  serious 


164  BERNARD  SHAW 

and  strenuous  dramatic  debate  to  furnish  the 
contemporary  stage  with  capital  light  entertain- 
ment: as  in  the  play  under  consideration,  or  the 
later  "  Androcles  and  the  Lion." 

Certainly  "  Fanny's  First  Play  "  is  not  one  of 
the  author's  most  important,  most  intellectual 
dramas,  but  it  does  not  fail  to  offer  an  underly- 
ing satirico-social  idea  and  the  stimulation  to  the 
brain  that  is  derived  from  an  examination  of 
modern  theories. 

To  make  the  thing  more  arresting  and  original, 
there  is  an  induction  and  epilogue,  after  the 
elder  fashion;  a  young  girl  is  to  have  her  piece 
performed  and  we  are  allowed  to  witness  the  pri- 
vate showing;  and  afterwards  to  hear  the  critical 
comment  upon  it;  leading  critics,  Walkley, 
Archer,  and  others,  appear  on  the  stage  and  dis- 
cuss the  play's  merits,  which  affords  the  author 
a  chance  to  poke  fun  at  critical  vagaries,  and 
contains  the  suggestion  that  as  there  is  no  agree- 
ment, the  principle  of  non  disputandum  holding 
here  as  elsewhere,  there  can  be  nothing  authorita- 
tive or  final  in  such  judgments. 

The  story  itself  veils  a  satiric  attack  on  smug, 
middle-class    Philistine    morality.       Partners    in 


"FANNY'S  FIRST  PLAY"  165 

business  whose  families  are  in  close  friendship 
have  respectively  a  son  and  daughter  whom  they 
intend  to  make  a  match  of  it.  But  both  disap- 
pear, go  off  on  a  lark,  escape  from  their  cell  like 
the  monk  of  Siberia.  Margaret,  the  girl  (played 
in  London  by  Lillah  McCarthy),  fired  with  an  in- 
nocent desire  to  see  life,  visits  a  Salvation  Army 
hall,  goes  to  the  promenade  of  a  theatre,  and 
then  to  a  dance,  and  falls  in  with  a  young 
Frenchman  who  steers  her  around  to  see  the 
sights.  Their  larkishness  lands  her  in  jail. 
Bobby,  the  son,  associates  himself  with  an  in- 
souciant young  female  of  the  name  of  Dora,  and 
her  influence  lands  him  in  prison,  too.  The  fun 
consists  in  seeing  them  come  home  to  shock  their 
families ;  and  to  hear  them  confess  to  each  other, 
each  supposing  the  fault  to  have  been  exclusive. 
When  they  discover  they  do  not  love,  they  very 
happily  pair  off,  Margaret  with  the  stately  but- 
ler whom  she  secretly  admires  and  who  turns  out 
to  be  a  duke ;  and  Bobby  with  "  darling  Dora," 
with  whom  he  finds  himself  perfectly  congenial. 
Again,  it  would  appear,  the  life-force  disturbing 
human  plans !  Regarded  as  fact,  a  realistic 
treatment  of  life,  this  play  obviously  runs  into 


166  BERNARD  SHAW 

extravaganza,  which  no  doubt  is  one  reason  for 
its  success :  the  two  marriages,  for  instance,  are 
improbable,  if  not  impossible.  But  as  usual,  the 
underlying  seriousness  is  to  be  found  in  the  study 
of  middle-class  ideas  of  propriety,  the  failure  to 
realize  what  the  younger  generation  are  and  need. 
Both  Bobby  and  Margaret  suffer  from  suppressed 
natural  instincts.  Their  comparatively  innocent 
and  harmless  night-off  would  in  real  life  result, 
the  author  would  say  to  us,  in  tragic  happenings. 
In  other  words,  here  is  drama  to  be  enjoyed  for 
the  sheer  fun  of  the  thing,  yet  which  observes  the 
Shavian  principle  in  that  it  is,  unobtrusively  in 
this  case,  a  drama  of  idea. 

The  characterization  is  full  of  flavor  and  car- 
ried through  with  an  unflagging  zest:  the  re- 
ligious Mrs.  Knox,  the  self-satisfied,  placid  Mrs. 
Gibney;  the  butler-earl,  whose  manners  as  the 
former  justify  his  being  the  latter;  the  French- 
man, humorously  introduced  for  the  sake  of  of- 
fering an  outside  coign  of  vantage  from  which  to 
comment  upon  this  group  of  Britishers ;  Dora, 
with  her  wayward  charm  and  the  good  that 
is  in  her  in  the  way  of  affection,  and  hon- 
est comradeship;  the  fathers  of  the  family,  too, 


"  ANDROCLES  AND  THE  LION  "       167 

alike  in  the  hidebound  respectability  which  is 
their  fetish;  to  say  nothing  of  the  princi- 
pals themselves,  especially  Margaret,  whom 
you  feel  to  be  an  excellent  example  of  the 
type  of  young  person  who  in  this  milieu  is  likely 
to  be  misunderstood.  It  is  all  sound  psychology. 
That  is  Shaw's  way:  solid  truth  about  human 
beings  within  a  more  or  less  fanciful  framework 
of  story.  The  framework  is  to  catch  gulls 
withal;  the  character  drawing  is  for  the  honora- 
ble minority.  He  elects  as  his  business  the  in- 
ner truth  of  psychology  instead  of  the  outer 
truth  of  plot. 

Androcles  and  the  Lion 

The  year  1912  seems  to  have  been  one  of  un- 
usual literary  activity  with  Mr.  Shaw,  for  three 
plays  are  dated  from  it  in  the  latest  volume  to 
appear  in  the  American  edition  of  his  works. 
The  first  in  order  is  "  Androcles  and  the  Lion," 
which  was  translated  into  German  by  the  Viennese 
journalist,  Siegfried  Trebitsch,  played  in  Berlin 
before  it  was  in  English,  and  produced  in  Lon- 
don by  Granville  Barker  and  Lillah  McCarthy, 


168  BERNARD  SHAW 

at  The  St.  James  Theatre,  September  1,  1913, 
and  in  America  by  Mr.  Barker,  at  Wallack's,  on 
January  22,  1915.  It  has  already  proved,  itself 
to  be  one  of  the  genuinely  effective  Shaw  dramas 
in  the  theatre.  This  is  probably  because,  while 
not  without  many  of  the  author's  more  serious 
earmarks  in  the  way  of  satiric  idea  and  scenic 
investiture,  it  is  or  has  the  effect  of  being  a  story 
play,  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  majority  of  theatre- 
goers in  whatever  country.  Its  novelty  of  form 
and  subject-matter  also  conduces  to  this  result. 
In  the  Preface  to  the  printed  play,  one  of  Shaw's 
most  extended  and  carefully  wrought  argumenta- 
tive brochures,  and  sufficiently  daring  to  arouse 
attention  and  contention,  the  writer  shows  more 
plainly  than  did  his  drama  (a  common  thing  with 
him,  and  stamping  him  as  so  much  the  better 
playwright)  how  much  there  is  behind  the  piece 
in  his  thought.  The  essay  of  well  over  a  hun- 
dred close-packed  pages  sets  forth  Shaw's  thesis 
that  no  modern  nation  has  as  yet  accepted  and 
put  into  practice  the  social  doctrines  of  Jesus, 
which,  he  believes,  would,  if  accepted,  give  hap- 
pier results  than  have  been  attained  from  any 
other  theory  of  society  and  state.     It  is  a  de- 


"ANDROCLES  AND  THE  LION"       169 

fense  of  the  teachings  of  the  founder  of  Christian- 
ity from  a  quarter  least  to  be  expected  by  those 
who  think  of  the  writer  as  a  destructive  force 
flaring  out  against  conventional  religion.  I 
doubt  if  a  piece  of  writing  ever  came  from  Mr. 
Shaw's  pen  to  surpass  this  Preface  and  the  lit- 
tle postscript  at  the  play's  end,  in  sheer  literary 
force;  it  is  extraordinary  for  crisp  concision 
and  a  kind  of  inevitability  of  felicitous  phrasing. 
The  clinch  of  such  a  sentence  as  this,  coming  in 
its  cumulative  place  after  what  goes  before,  can- 
not fail  to  be  noted  by  any  one  sensitive  to  the 
uses  of  English :  "  From  which  I  conclude  that 
a  popular  pulpit  may  be  as  perilous  to  a  man's 
soul  as  an  imperial  throne." 

The  author  makes  plain  in  his  Preface,  if  it 
were  needed  to  do  so,  that  his  drama,  a  curious 
mixture  of  fable,  chronicle  history,  and  extrava- 
ganza, is  not  a  study  of  the  early  Christians  and 
Roman  civilization,  but  of  the  martvr  tvpe  and 
the  persecutor  type  as  such,  wherever  found; 
these  particular  types  being  illustratively  made 
use  of.  No  depiction  of  the  subject  was  ever 
more  removed  from  bias  or  parti  pris.  Grant 
that  Shaw  gets  fun  out  of  both  Christian  and 


170  BERNARD  SHAW 

Pagan,  he  has  no  purpose  to  ridicule  either,  save 
as  all  humanity  is  laughable,  as  well  as  pathetic, 
tragic,  and  inspiring,  when  viewed  by  a  true 
satirist.  He  shows  us  that  a  Caesar  is  very  much 
what  his  environment  makes  him,  for  good  or 
bad;  that  not  all  are  Christians  in  the  deeper 
sense  who  so  call  themselves,  witness  a  Ferrovius, 
a  Lavinia,  and  a  Spintho, — of  a  truth,  religion 
makes  strange  bedfellows, — and  that  the  famous 
cruelties  of  Rome  at  this  juncture  were  simply 
the  regulaT_r£^ctipn  .QLtha^conventionaliist  to  er.- 
centric  persons  at  large.  Thus,  in  a  drama 
fairly  uproarious  in  its  opportunities  for  amuse- 
ment, there  is,  for  those  willing  to  look  beneath 
the  laugh,  some  of  the  cogent  thinking  which  it 
is  the  writer's  sly  way  to  pass  to  us  when  we  are 
off  guard,  along  with  the  more  obvious  merriment 
of  which  he  is  prodigal. 

"  Androcles  and  the  Lion "  coruscates  with 
palpable  theatre  effects  of  the  most  alluring  sort. 
The  openiog-scene  in  which  by  way  of  prologue, 
and  embroidering  the  old  tale,  the  man  tames 
the  beast,  is  as  convulsing  an  example  of  Shaw's 
broad  humor  as  can  be  named.  The  arena 
scenes   are  brilliantly  of  stage  value;   and  that 


"ANDROCLES  AND  THE  LION"       171 

in  which  the  imperial  monarch,  mere  man  now 
in  his  terror,  is  chased  by  the  lion,  is  even 
more  overcoming  to  the  risibles  than  the  initial 
appearance  of  the  brute.  The  characterization 
is  as  varied  and  salient  as  could  be  wished: 
a  striking  study  in  contrasts  and  yet  brought 
under  the  common  denominator  of  human  nature. 
I  am  sorry  for  any  one  who  does  not  see  a  deep 
pathos  in  the  seemingly  weak,  henpecked  hus- 
band of  the  shrewish  Megaera,  who,  by  the  way, 
is  packed  full  of  irradiating  meanings  upon  fam- 
ily life  and  its  relations.  Androcles,  with  his 
gentle  sweetness,  his  rather  dazed  desire  for  the 
use  of  loving-kindness,  is,  seen  to  the  center  of 
him,  a  very  touching  portraiture,  and  Shaw  at 
his  best.  The  final  exit  of  Tommy  the  lion  and 
his  friend,  a  man  whose  loving-kindness  is  not 
arbitrarily  limited  by  the  line  between  brute  and 
human,  contains  the  lines  spoken  by  Androcles: 

"  Whilst  we  stand  together,  no  cage  for 
you;  no  slavery  for  me." 

It  is  an  idealist  reminding  us  that  liberty  is 
.one^  and  if  it  be  a  principle  worth  applying,  it 
cannot  be  for  sporadic  application. 


172  BERNARD  SHAW 

A  plot  in  the  strict  sense  may  be  denied  to  this 
favorable  specimen  of  the  author's  maturer  art. 
Androcles,  along  with  a  number  of  Christian 
martyrs,  is  in  the  Roman  arena  awaiting  his  turn 
to  be  torn  to  pieces  by  wild  beasts.  He  is  saved 
by  the  lion  from  whose  foot  he  has  extracted  the 
thorn.  Such  complications  as  arise  are  due  to 
the  different  ways  in  which  the  Christians  take 
their  fate,  the  interactions  of  prisoners  and  cap- 
tors, and,  above  all,  to  the  disturbing  presence 
of  the  king  of  beasts.  There  is  an  excellent 
climax  in  the  rescue  of  Androcles  by  his  supposed 
destroyer,  suddenly  changed  to  friend  for  a  rea- 
son cannily  understood  by  the  theatre  audience, 
after  the  prologue's  preparation,  but  highly  mys- 
tifying to  the  persons  of  the  play, — a  truly 
right  handling  of  story  for  theatre  purposes. 
The  story  is  quite  sufficient  for  the  style  of  play 
in  which  it  is  used,  and  the  leisurely  movement 
and  full  pausing  for  individual  effects  of  scene 
and  character  exposition  are  deliberately  adopted 
by  the  playwright,  rather  than  a  tenser  handling 
of  material  in  a  drama  of  skilful  tangle  and 
emphasis  upon  suspense.  Again  we  get  thought- 
ful burlesTjue,  extravaganza,  faxce,  or  all  of  them, 


"  OVERRULED  "  173 

as  jou  will.  Farce,  it  can  hardly  be  called,  when 
so  much  care  and  serious  intention  are  put  into 
character  portrayal. 

The  form  into  which  "  Androcles  and  the 
Lion  "  is  thrown  offers  still  another  example  of 
Shaw's  free  hand  in  moulding  his  material.  The 
prologue  is  followed  by  two  acts  only,  the  act- 
ing time  as  a  result  falling  under  the  conven- 
tional demands  of  a  full  evening's  entertainment, 
so  that  a  forepiece  is  properly  given  with  it. 
But  this  did  not  prevent  the  dramatist  from  say- 
ing all  he  had  to  say  within  more  prescribed 
limits  and  stopping  when  he  was  through, — one 
of  the  eternal  difficulties  of  literature! 

Overruled 

This  one-act  piece  was  written  in  1912,  and 
produced  at  The  Duke  of  York's  Theatre,  in 
London,  October  14,  of  that  year,  in  a  triple  bill 
in  which  the  other  two  plays  were  contributed  by 
Sir  James  Barrie  and  Sir  Arthur  Pinero.  Shaw 
describes  it  as  "  a  comedy  of  manners,"  also  as 
"  a  clinical  stud3\"  Often  in  his  plays  there  is 
the  suggestion  that  existent  social  views  reflect 


174  BERNARD  SHAW 

back  upon  married  folk  and  make  trouble.  Here 
he  exhibits  a  complication  arising  from  such 
pseudo-ideals,  treating  the  situation  in  a  vein  of 
light  satire.  The  result  is  a  bit  of  enjoyable 
fooling,  though  by  no  means  the  writer  at  his 
best.  The  note  struck  is  that  of  "  The  Philan- 
derer," without  that  play's  more  serious  tone  and 
elaborate  handling. 

Two  married  pairs  are  shown,  and  the  wife  in 
each  case  talks  over  her  situation  with  the  hus- 
band of  the  other  woman.  None  of  the  four  is  a 
philanderer  in  the  sense  that  any  one  of  them  is 
willing  to  disturb  the  peace  of  a  friend's  house- 
hold. Yet  none  of  them  is  true  to  individual 
duty  in  the  married  bond.  That  is,  they  respect 
the  convention,  but  do  not  respect  the  personal 
faith  in  the  home  which  is  the  basis  of  right  do- 
ing. One  couple  says :  "  I  like  this,  though  I 
oughtn't."  In  contrast,  the  second  couple  says: 
"  I  want  to  like  this,  but  I  don't,  particularly." 

By  interesting  character  relief  and  contrast 
and  through  witty,  keen  dialogue,  Shaw  satirizes 
the  conventional  view  of  such  a  social  contre- 
temps. He  shows  us  plainly  his  conviction  that 
the  usual  assumptions  in  the  premises  are  untrue, 


"OVERRULED"  175 

because  they  do  not  square  with  the  facts  about 
human  nature.  The  two  men,  and  the  two 
women  as  well,  are  constantly  saying  what  they 
consider  proper,  according  to  the  social  opinion 
that  prevails,  while  they  are  steadily  acting 
otherwise;  whether  or  not  they  obey  the  conven- 
tion, the  point  Shaw  makes  is,  that  they  set  it 
up  as  right  to  obey.  The  treatment  is  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  author's  general  view:  accept 
human  nature  for  what  it  is,  in  planning  and  con- 
ducting the  marriage  system,  which,  being  human, 
is  necessarily  imperfect;  do  not  pretend  that  hu- 
manity is  something  other  than  it  is.  "  I  like  any 
one  to  love  me,"  says  one  of  the  women.  "  Of 
course,  we  all  do.  Can't  we  admit  that  we're  hu- 
man, and  have  done  with  it?  "  says  Mrs.  Juno. 

"  Marriage  is  all  very  well,  but  it  isn't  ro- 
mance," remarks  Juno ;  which  I  take  to  be  Shaw 
whimsically  suggesting  that  the  mistake  is  to 
think  romance  is  better.  The  humor  of  the 
situation,  where  each  man  goes  out  to  dinner 
with  the  other's  wife,  depends  upon  this  cheerful, 
open-eyed  acceptance  of  human  nature :  the  frank 
liking  by  criss-cross,  with  the  removal  of  sur- 
reptitious guilt,  deceit,  and  the  like ;  so  that  it  be- 


176  BERNARD  SHAW 

comes  simply  a  frank,  open  pleasure  in  the  so- 
ciety of  human  beings  other  than  within  the 
home;  flirting  ceases,  the  relation  is  innocently 
sexual,  but  not  animal.  The  flaw  here,  as  else- 
where with  Shaw,  is  to  be  found  in  the  notion 
that  so  highly  inflammable  material  as  human 
beings  would  in  all  cases  escape  the  flames  of  il- 
licit love.  With  Shaw,  it  seems  an  attitude  of 
mind,  this  theory,  rather  than  a  workable  thing; 
but  as  theory,  admirable,  with  a  great  deal  of 
truth  in  it. 

The  title  of  the  play  may  be  taken  in  the 
technical  legal  sense :  "  Overruled,  to  set  aside 
the  authority  of  a  decision  as  a  precedent,  by 
maintaining  a  difl'erent  doctrine  in  a  later  case." 


Pygmalion 

Like  "  Androcles  and  the  Lion,"  this  play 
was  first  done  in  Germany,  the  translation  also 
by  Herr  Trebitsch,  being  produced  at  the  Les- 
sing  Theater,  Berlin,  in  November,  1913.  Sir 
Herbert  Tree  produced  it  at  Her  Majesty's 
^' Theatre,  in  London,  April  18,  1914,  and  it  was 
also  first  done  in  New  York  in  German  in  the  sea- 


"  PYGMALION  "  177 

son  of  1913-14,  and  in  the  same  season  by  Mrs. 
Patrick  Campbell,  October  12,  at  The  Park 
Theatre. 

Like  "  Fanny's  First  Play,"  it  was  a  re- 
assurance that  Shaw  in  his  prime  could  pro- 
duce drama  of  practical  stage  appeal  and  story 
interest.  Its  popularity  in  several  lands  has 
been  decided.  The  theme  in  itself,  the  general  so- 
cial elevation  secured  to  a  woman  of  the  people 
by  her  careful  training  in  speech,  under  the  in- 
fluence  of  a  philologist,  whose  personal  power 
over  her  is  of  a  kind  to  suggest  love,  is  not  so 
searching  or  universal  as  many  of  the  other 
plays.  Indeed,  to  some  the  idea  may  appear  to 
be  far-fetched.  The  thing  to  recognize,  however, 
is  that  a  first-rate  acting  drama  is  the  result,  the 
whimsical  motive  proving  full  of  possibilities  in 
the  hands  of  Shaw;  and  moreover,  the  additional 
fact  that  the  piece  does  not  fail  to  give  us  the 
usual  overtones:  shrewd,  penetrating  observa- 
tions upon  society,  and  the  men  and  women  who  p 
make  it  up,  in  their  sex  meanings,  together  with 
sundry  scattering  reflections  which  are  immedi- 
ately caught  as  familiar  and  representative.  At 
the  center  is  the  satire  directed  against  the  pre- 


178  BERNARD  SHAW 

tensions  and  conventions  of  class.  The  speech 
of  Eliza,  the  flower  girl,  at  first  objectionably 
like  her  kind  and  later  that  of  a  fine  lady,  be- 
comes in  Shaw's  hands  a  symbol  of  all  the  ex- 

^ternal,  acquired  touchstones  by  which  people  as- 
sume superiority  and  grade  social  distinction. 
The  dramatist,  with  his  keenly  observant  eye, 
sees  that  it  is  in  the  main  some  superficial  ac- 
quisition,— dress,  language,  deportment,  habit  of 
life, — that  gives  a  person  the  social  place  proudly 
taken  as  a  right ;  and  he  laughs  at  this,  as  demo- 
crat and  socialist,  much  as  Moliere  laughed  at 
this  or  that  one  of  the  learned  professions. 

Regarded  as  story,  the  interest  heads  up  in  the 
relation  of  Eliza  to  the  professor  who  has  made 
her  socially,  by  his  ingenious  instruction  in  the 
proper  use  of  the  mother  tongue.     The  situation 

^  is  decidedly  piquant ;  one  feels  that  she  is  greatly 
interested  in  him,  influenced  by  him,  and  there  is 
a  natural  question  in  one's  mind:  will  they 
marry.?  Somewhat  tantalizingly  Shaw  writes  a 
last  scene  leaving  the  querj^  in  mid-air;  the  issue 
is  ambiguous,  for  while  the  action  implies  that 
Eliza  will  defiantly  go  to  work  for  Higgins's  rival, 
and   she   snaps   her   fingers   at   her   former   mas- 


"PYGMALION"  179 

ter,  yet  there  is  that  m  the  two  characters,  and 
in  the  girl's  very  tempestuousness  of  repudiation, 
which  breeds  the  suspicion  that  at  bottom  Hig- 
gins  is  the  man  she  wants,  and,  after  the  fashion^ 
of  Ann's  grab  game,  will  get.  Characteristically, 
the  author  adds  to  this  scene  in  the  printed  play 
an  explanation  from  which  we  learn  that  this  de- 
duction is  incorrect ;  that  she  marries  Freddy,  q 
the  young  gentleman  who,  in  the  crass  idiom  of 
today,  fell  for  her  from  the  first.  And  she  makes 
this  decision,  the  author  goes  on  to  tell  us,  not 
that  she  did  not  care  for  the  professor,  but  be- 
cause she  instinctively  felt  that  he  would  not^ 
make  a  good  husband,  was  not  of  the  Benedick 
brand,  because — a  reason  truly  Shavian  in  its  un- 
expectedness— she  had  a  rival  in  Higgins's  mother, O 
to  whom  this  middle-aged,  forceful,  and  woman- 
attracting  bachelor  was  so  devoted.  The  pages 
wherein  this  theory  is  propounded  and  the  anxious 
auditor  of  the  play  set  right,  will  add  much  to 
the  pleasure  from  the  play,  and  are  rich  in  social 
suggestion. 

In  this  drama,  Shaw  reverts  to  the  old-fash- 
ioned five-act  form  which  we  have  come  to  expect 
in  modern  dramaturgy  only  in  plays  of  romantic 


180  BERNARD  SHAW 

and  historical  character,  where  the  model  would 
traditionally  favor  it.  To  give  a  modern  real- 
istic comedy  such  form  seems  almost  like  bravado. 
Probably  the  best  reason  to  give  is  that  the 
drama  worked  out  that  way  when  it  was  plotted 
and  scene-divided.  It  is  really  a  four-act  play 
with  a  prologue:  for  such  act  one,  which  shows 
the  flower  girl  in  her  estate  before  the  meta- 
morphosis under  Higgins  began,  can  be  seen  to 
be.  Jn  this  opening  act,  the  main  characters, 
especially  Higgins  and  the  flower  girl,  are 
limned,  and  then  act  second  starts  the  phoneti- 
cal  reform,  act  third  shows  it  triumphant,  act 
fourth  presents  the  climax  of  Eliza's  reaction 
and  revolt  from  the  cold-hearted  experiment 
which  has  lifted  her  to  the  duchess  height,  only 
to  let  her  fall  back  into  the  street ;  leaving  a  final 
act  of  high  tension  to  clear  up  the  relations  of 
the  two — and  without  doing  it!  Both  to  the 
lover  of  story  for  story's  sake  and  the  student  of 
human  nature,  the  final  situation  of  these  two 
strangely  contrasted  folk  offers  fascinating 
queries:  will  they,  should  they,  could  they?  And 
the  author  tantalizes  us  with  a  curtain  which 
leaves  an  interrogation  mark.     The  fourth  act 


"PYGMALION"  181 

scene  of  the  turn  of  Eliza  upon  the  man  whose 
power  she  feels  yet  resents,  is  very  fine  drama  in- 
deed. Had  Shaw  been  a  "  romantic,"  he  would, 
of  course,  have  closed  the  affair  by  throwing^ 
the  two  into  each  other's  arms.  But  not  with 
so  consistent  an  enemy  of  the  customary  treat- 
ment of  love.  Higgins  is  a  Frankenstein  who,  to 
his  astonishment,  finds  that  his  own  creation,  the  ^ 
street  girl,  is  likely  to  turn  and  rend  him.  In  his 
scientific  interest  in  her  as  a  phonetic  problem, 
and  his  intellectual  use  of  her  to  prove  that 
duchesses  can  be  easily  manufactured  (ignor- 
ing human  interest),  he  has  quite  overlooked 
the  little  matter  of  Eliza's  having  a  soul.  With 
all  the  differences  of  subject,^  treatment,  setting, 
and  tone,  there  is  a  reminder  in  this  situation  of 
Ibsen's  "  When  We  Dead  Awaken,"  with  the 
sculptor  also  refusing  to  treat  his  model  as  a  hu- 
man being  and  respond  to  her  love.  What  a  fan- 
tastic proposition  for  a  realist's  play!  To  make 
a  duchess  in  six  months  by  reforming  the  speech 
and  deportment  of  a  malleable  girl  of  the  people, 
with  good  looks  and  natural  intelligence !  But 
given  the  premises,  how  much  of  shrewdest  so- 
cial wisdom  is  in  it,  what  a  caustic  picture  of  hu- 


182  BERNARD  SHAW 

man  nature,  enlivened  by  humor  and  penetrating 
often  to  the  very  center  of  the  truth. 

Eliza  is  a  remarkable  creation,  not  needing  a 
Mrs.  Patrick  Campbell  to  show  it,  since  one  gets 
her  clearly  in  the  reading.  The  two  men  of 
science,  Higgins  and  Pickering,  might  easily  over- 
lap, but  yet  are  perfectly  distinct.  Higgins  him- 
self, though  in  certain  respects  he  may  seem  to 
reveal  his  creator  hardly  masked  behind  him,  is 
immensely  alive,  and  a  type  standing  squarely  on 
his  own  feet.  His  mother  is  delightful,  and  ac-  C- 
counts  for  her  son's  infatuation  with  her.  Freddy, 
as  an  amiable  nobody,  is  a  sketch,  but  a  capital  f) 
one;  the  Eynsford-Hills,  mother  and  daughter, 
are  an  acute  study  of  genteel  poverty.  As  for 
Doolittle,  he  deserves  a  chapter  to  himself!  No 
doubt  he  is  farcical,  or  if  you  insist,  impossible. 
But  how  could  we  spare  his  inimitable  talk  about 
the  "  deserving  poor,"  the  unction  of  his  genial 
blackguardism?  As  a  married  man,  he  is  im- <^ 
mortally  good  fun.  One  goes  back  to  Dickens  for 
his  prototype,  and  does  not  quite  find  it,  since 
Doolittle  is  himself  and  no  other. 

In  short,  in  this  latest  drama  to  be  widely  seen 
and  read,   Shaw  is   so   enjoy  ably  the  maker   of 


"  GREAT  CATHERINE  "  183 

merriment  and  keen  social  satirist  as  to  make  it 
temperate  to  say  that  his  present  estate  as  play- 
wright shows  him  in  his  ripest  ability. 

Great  Catherine 

This  is  another  of  the  sportive  trifles  in  which 
our  author  rewrites  history.  Its  date  is  1913, 
the  same  year  as  "  Pygmalion."  It  is  frank 
burlesque,  extravaganza  that  yet  contains  the 
smile  of  the  mind.  That  Catherine  of  Russia  was 
anything  like  the  representation  of  her  in  this 
one-act  piece,  can  never  be  settled,  since  it  is  ex- 
actly a  person  behind  the  public  scene  of  tradi- 
tional report  who  is  pictured.  Nor  have  we  the 
interpretive  benefit  of  the  usual  introduction. 
But  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  consider  too  curi- 
ously in  the  case  of  a  jeu  d'esprit  which  the 
author  describes  as  "  a  harmless  piece  of  tom- 
foolery." It  is  one  of  those  bits  of  stage  fun 
which  this  serious-minded  writer  permits  himself, 
now  and  again,  perhaps  primarily  for  his  own 
relief,  and  while  its  tendency  to  suggest  the  un- 
conventional values  and  contours  of  historical 
characters  is  undoubtedly  an  element  in  Shaw's 


184  BERNARD  SHAW 

purpose,  it  is  safer  criticism  to  center  the  scru- 
tiny of  this  sportive  piece  of  irresponsibility  on 
character,  scene,  and  situation.  In  no  other  of 
his  plays  has  Shaw  let  himself  go  so  far  in  the 
way  of  horseplay  and  broad,  some  will  say, 
coarse  comedy,  with  the  single  exception  of  "  Pas- 
sion, Poison,  and  Petrifaction."  The  thing  is  a 
veritable  riot  of  physical  knockabout,  and  much 
of  its  effectiveness  is  derived  from  the  absurd  in- 
congruity of  exhibiting  personages  of  high  im- 
portance in  the  sleazy  deshabille  of  truth;  it 
would  be  unpleasantly  disillusioning,  if  we  cared 
more  for  those  who  are  depicted.  Catherine, 
whose  name  comes  to  us  as  ominous,  retires  from 
Shaw's  hands  as  an  attractive  woman  who,  like 
Elizabeth,  cared  for  men;  and  through  the 
drunken  buffoonery  of  her  minister,  Patiomkin, 
emerge  the  battered  outlines  of  an  astute  states- 
man, after  all.  And  the  comparison  between  the 
fact  of  such  characters  and  their  figureheads  in 
history  is  so  drawn  as  to  produce  an  amusement 
not  altogether  unthoughtful. 

The  young  English  officer  set  bewildered  in 
this  wild  Russian  behind-the-scenes  farrago  of 
psychology,  enables  the  writer  to  make  some  of 


"THE   MUSIC   CURE"  185 

his  usual  hits  at  the  British  type,  while  plainly 
showing  it  as  quite  able  to  take  care  of  itself  in 
the  imbroglio.  "  Great  Catherine  "  may  be  set  be- 
side "  Press  Cuttings,"  for  its  ungloved,  exuber- 
ant handling  of  great  names,  and  its  tendency  to 
satirize  the  conventions  of  character  portrayal. 
It  makes  fun  of  court  life  of  the  past  in  much 
the  same  spirit  and  with  much  the  same  intention 
shown  by  Mark  Twain,  in  his  "  Connecticut  Yan- 
kee at  the  Court  of  King  Arthur."  Its  realism 
of  method  and  perhaps  in  part  the  nature  of  the 
theme  prevent  it  from  being  so  marked  a  success 
as  the  English  satire  on  present  history,  more 
commonly  called  politics.  It  will  not,  I  imagine, 
be  ranked  as  on  a  level  with  "  Press  Cuttings," 
nor  take  its  place  among  the  happiest  achieve- 
ments of  the  author  in  the  drama  of  one-act 
form. 


The  Music  Cure 

This  is  another  topical  skit  after  the  manner 
of  "  Press  Cuttings,"  in  one  act,  containing 
much  in  the  way  of  political  allusions,  including 
the  Marconi  scandal.     It  was  produced  at  The 


186  BERNARD  SHAW 

Little  Theatre,  London,  January  28,  1914,  as  a 
curtain  raiser  to  Chesterton's  "  Magic,"  and  has 
not  been  published,  so  that  a  knowledge  of  it,  un- 
less one  were  so  fortunate  as  to  have  heard  the 
piece,  is  based  upon  the  newspaper  reports. 
Thus  indirectly  judged,  it  seems  to  be  one  of  the 
minor  sketches  for  purposes  of  fooling  primarily, 
and  offering  relief  (to  those  who  seek  it)  for  all 
who  find  dramas  like  "  Mrs.  Warren's  Profes- 
sion "  and  "  Man  and  Superman  "  too  heroic  in 
their  demands.  We  get  an  interior  scene  which 
shows  an  Under-Secretary  of  State  much  ex- 
hausted by  the  examination  of  the  Macaroni 
Committee,  the  Macaroni  Company  being  one  in 
which  he  has  invested  heavily  on  hearing  that  the 
Army  is  to  go  on  a  vegetarian  diet.  To  help  him 
recover,  his  mother  has  engaged  a  woman  pianist 
to  play  to  him;  and  the  music  cure,  involving 
both  piano  and  concertina,  works  so  well  that  the 
lady  captures  the  weary  one,  the  curtain  falling 
on  the  rendition  as  a  duet  of  "  You  Made  Me 
Love  You:  I  Didn't  Want  to  Do  It," — a  senti- 
ment recognizably  of  Shaw,  since  it  might  be 
the  heraldic  device  of  John  Tanner.  One  can 
understand   that    this    slight    framework    of   fun 


"  THE  MUSIC  CURE  "  187 

may   contain    some   genuinely    Shavian   material, 
though  the  reviews  do  not  favor  this  idea. 

At  the  present  writing,  Shaw's  latest  drama, 
by  name  "  OTlaherty,  V.  C,"  has  been  restrained 
by  the  authorities  in  Ireland,  where  it  was  the 
intention  of  The  Abbey  Theatre  to  produce  it, 
on  the  ground  that  it  would  not  be  looked  on 
with  favor  in  the  premises.  The  British  censor 
has  no  jurisdiction  in  Ireland,  but  the  objection 
comes  from  the  military  not  civil  authorities. 
Whether  this  attitude  will  soon  be  slackened  or 
the  conductor  of  The  Abbey  Theatre,  Mr, 
Ervine,  may  defy  the  warnings  and  let  the  play 
be  seen,  is  in  the  lap  of  the  gods.  So  far,  it  has 
not  been  published,  save  for  practical  stage  and 
copyright  purposes;  so  that  no  examination  of 
the  drama  can  be  made  for  this  volume. 

This,  then,  completes  the  list  of  the  dramatic 
writings  of  Bernard  Shaw,  and  the  number, 
thirty  plays,  makes  his  work  generous  in  quan- 
tity. But  quantity,  save  as  it  implies  a  fecund 
mind  full  of  matter  to  give  the  world,  would  not 
be  significant,  could  we  not  add  that  in  verve, 
variety,   literary    skill    and   effect,    and   pungent 


188  BERNARD  SHAW 

stimulative  appeal  to  thought,  the  work  enchains 
attention,  rewards  study,  and  affords  the  pleas- 
ure that  belongs  to  a  genuine  contribution  to 
letters. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  SOCIAL  THINKER 

After  this  detailed  examination  of  the  plays 
in  due  chronologic  order,  we  may  synthesize  the 
main  points  of  Shaw's  social  teaching,  his  opin- 
ions with  regard  to  men  and  women  in  society 
today,  and  the  evils  which  prevent  the  free  and 
fruitful  development  of  the  individual. 

There  is  room  for  both  the  individualistic  and 
socialistic  ideal  in  his  view.  On  the  one  hand,  he 
regards  it  as  the  highest  aim  of  the  state  to  con- 
serve and  foster  that  deeply  personal  expression 
of  the  will  to  live,  and  the  will  to  function,  which 
shall  result,  as  he  believes,  in  the  fullest  expan- 
sion of  every  man  and  woman.  And  on  the  other, 
he  conceives  it  as  obligatory  upon  the  state, 
meaning  the  framework  of  government  which 
should  exist  alone  for  its  helpfulness  in  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  individual,  so  to  legislate  as  to  assist 
men  and  women  in  this  interacting  growth  and  self- 
realization.     In  a  word,  the  state  exists  for  Man, 


190  BERNARD  SHAW 

it  has  no  other  reason  for  being.  But,  sharply 
diverging  from  Ibsen  at  this  point,  he  thinks  the 
state  is  a  beneficent  means  to  this  end:  largely 
wrong,  mismanaged,  and  in  the  way  of  progress, 
to  be  sure;  but  to  be  improved,  not  destroyed. 
Ibsen,  both  in  his  plays  and  in  private  letters,  ex- 
pressed scepticism  with   regard  to   the  value   of 

>.  the  state,  and  was  for  a  clean  sweep  of  removal. 
Shaw  prefers   to   use   the   present   machinery  by 

.(eliminating  its  defects.  Like  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells,  he 
^  has  faith  in  the  collective  mind  of  society,  which 
shall  work  this  betterment,  as  it  gradually  (the 
Fabian,  we  saw,  gets  his  name  from  his  tendency 
to  make  haste  slowly)  comes  to  perceive  what  is 
wrong  in  detail  and  rectifies  it  by  improved  laws. 
And  again  like  Wells,  he  finds  that  the  collective 
mind,  which  is  the  mind  socialistically  inclined, 
must  get  expression  in  the  few  individual  minds 
of  clear  seeing  and  natural  leadership;  Wells, 
his  own,  and  suchlike  thinkers.  The  word  revolu- 
tionist, in  its  usual  alarming  connotation,  does 
not  belong  to  him  at  all.  To  be  sure,  in  that 
document  known  as  "  The  Revolutionist's  Hand- 
book," one  of  the  most  brilliant  pieces  of  polemic 
writing    in    a    generation,    he    appears    with    an 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  191 

anarchic  flourish  calculated  to  mislead  the  sim- 
ple. But  it  is  only  part  of  Bernard  Shaw's  little 
joke  with  the  English  language.  All  you  need  to 
do  is  to  read  him,  instead  of  interpreting  him  by 
headlines,  and  you  ascertain  that  the  "  revolu- 
tionist "  in  his  meaning  is  "  one  who  desires  to 
discard  the  existing  social  order  and  try 
another  " ;  that  the  method  of  so  doing  may  be 
as  mild  and  peaceful  as  a  Fabian  program;  and 
that,  illustratively,  a  general  election  in  England 
is  "  revolutionary."  In  all  his  writing  and  think- 
ing, Shaw  uses  speech  as  all  first-class  literary 
persons  do,  to  enforce  his  thought  by  an  appeal 
to  its  radical  meanings.  He  differs  from  such  a 
master  as  Stevenson,  for  example,  in  that  the  lat- 
ter gives  us  the  root  flavors  of  language  for  the 
pleasure  that  comes  from  this  fresh,  picturesque 
use;  whereas  Shaw  does  it  primarily  for  the  pur- 
pose of  mental  shock,  and  stimulation  of  the  in- 
tellect into  thinking. 

When  it  comes  to  the  particular  stripe  of  so- 
cialism consistently  to  be  found  in  Shaw's  dramas, 
it  must  be  understood  in  the  first  place  that  we 
see  a  man  frankly  growing  before  our  gaze,  and 
honest    enough    and    large    enough    to    make    no 


192  BERNARD  SHAW 

bones  about  it.  The  only  consistency  which  is  a 
jewel,  as  Shaw  is  well  aware,  is  that  which  hon- 
estly believes  a  thing  at  the  moment  it  is  said; 
for  there  must  be  organic  connection  between  a 
series  of  apparently  disparate  opinions  if  they  be 
strung  beadlike  upon  the  cord  of  a  genuine  per- 
sonality; beneath  all  seeming  contradictions,  is 
the  unity  of  a  sincere  nature  in  its  course  of  de- 
velopment. Shaw  may  begin  with  Henry  George, 
swear  by  Marx  later,  and  eventually  repudiate 
the  German  and  take  up  with  the  views  of  Eng- 
lish economists  like  Sidney  Webb,  and  yet  exhibit 
a  beautiful  coordination,  if  we  will  but  accept 
him  as  changing  as  he  waxes  mature,  as  all  real 
thinkers  do. 

Recognizing,  then,  that  we  begin  with  this 
maker  of  many  plays  when  he  is  a  young  thinker 
in  the  formative  period  of  the  thirties  and  follow 
him  for  over  twenty  years  into  the  late  fifties, 
nor  refusing  to  him,  now  in  his  intellectual  prime, 
the  right  to  readjust  his  theories  more  than  once 
in  the  future,  it  may  be  said  that  Bernard  Shaw, 
as  at  present  on  view,  believes  in  much  more 
state  interference  with  the  untutored  collective 
will,  and  with  the  vicious  private  will,  than  now 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  193 

obtains.  Certainly  he  would  socialize  the  means 
of  production  and  exchange  by  municipal  or 
state  control,  instead  of  leaving  it  to  private 
initiative  and  capital.  He  would  have  mothers 
pensioned  by  the  state,  for  example,  and  doctors 
salaried  by  the  city,  and  eugenics  enforced  by 
law,  and  marriage  made  more  difficult  and  divorce 
easier  by  governmental  action.  And  he  would 
have  men  and  women  given  an  equal  economic 
chance  before  the  law,  the  latter  being  recog- 
nized as  economic  competitors,  and  wage-earners 
who  should  receive  an  equivalent  of  their  wage- 
earning  capacity  when  they  elect  the  role  of 
child-bearing  and  child-rearing.  He  would  have 
the  state  reach  out  its  long  arm  and  punitively 
seize  the  smug,  respectable  citizenry  which  at- 
tends church  regularly  but  derives  an  income 
from  insanitary  slums  and  houses  of  ill  repute  of 
various  kinds. 

All  this,  it  will  be  observed,  is  state  interfer- 
ence with  what  is  so  proudly  called,  especially  in 
political  campaigns,  "  the  inalienable  right  of 
the  individual."  It  is  a  view  we  Americans  are 
somewhat  shy  of,  although  we  adopt  it  with  de- 
lightful   inconsistency    here    and    there    in    our 


194  BERNARD  SHAW 

municipally  conducted  lighting  plants,  or  pub- 
lic libraries,  or  by  whatever  piece  of  machinery 
we  see  fit  to  handle  some  great  utility  in  the 
interests  of  the  public  and  without  private  gain 
as  an  object.  This  is  Shaw's  socialism  as  we 
find  it  scattered  through  his  plays  and  applica- 
ble to  this  or  that  aspect  of  social  thought,  which 
aims  in  general  to  improve  the  present  condi- 
tions of  living  and  bring  into  closer  harmony 
the  members  of  the  social  organism.  He  has 
declared  that  "  the  only  fundamental  socialism 
is  the  socialization  of  the  selective  breeding  of 
man;  in  other  terms,  of  human  evolution.  We 
must  eliminate  the  Yahoo,  or  his  vote  will  wreck 
the  commonwealth."  Then,  the  inequitable  mass- 
ing of  wealth  in  private  hands,  and  the  masked 
slavery  that  is  called  free  labor  under  present 
conditions,  would  automatically  be  taken  care  of. 
The  policy  of  Fabianism,  in  his  own  description, 
is  one  that  is  "  peaceful,  constitutional,  moral, 
economical,"  and  needing  nothing  "  for  its  blood- 
less and  benevolent  realization  but  the  approval 
of  the  English  people." 

In  this  conception  of  the  function  of  the  state, 
Shaw  sees  the  family  as  necessarily  central  and 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  195 

its  integrity  essential  to  the  best  results.  He  is 
anything  but  destructive  in  his  treatment  of  the 
home  as  the  natural  integer  of  the  state;  his  con- 
clusions here  are  as  conservative  as  those  of  a 
typical  Mid- Victorian ;  only  he  waxes  iconoclastic 
when  he  considers  the  methods  whereby  the  fam- 
ily may  be  better  constituted  and  regulated.  A 
short  cut  to  his  view,  as  we  saw,  may  be  found  in 
reading  the  Preface  to  "  Getting  Married,"  sup- 
plemented, naturally,  by  the  play  itself!  All  the 
half-baked  talk  as  to  the  Shavian  philosophy  be- 
ing subversive  of  the  family  and  state  is  either 
intentionally  misrepresentative  or  blandly  igno- 
rant of  his  teaching,  or,  once  again,  using  his 
convenient  phrase,  "  mentally  overtaxed  "  in  the 
attempt  to  interpret  it.  Nothing  is  clearer  than 
his  position  here.  He  certainly  regards  the  home, 
as  at  present  constituted,  as  ill-managed  in  the 
interests  of  the  child, — and  the  school  likewise; 
his  underlying  objection  to  both  being  the  repres- 
sive principle  which  maims  and  inhibits  the  free 
personal  reaction  which  alone  is  life.  Even  as  he 
believes  in  the  selective  principle  of  eugenics  to 
get  the  child  born,  so  he  believes  in  assisting  the 
child  in  its  period  of  growth  to  self-realization. 


^ 


193  BERNARD  SHAW 

The  introduction  to  "  Misalliance,"  one  of  the 
most  elaborate  he  ever  penned,  gives  us  a  clear 
idea  of  his  notions  on  the  complex  and  vastly 
misunderstood  relations  of  parents  and  chil- 
dren. 

Shaw's  championship  of  women  consists  in  his 
open-eyed  recognition  that  they  must  be  an  or- 
ganic part  of  the  rightly  conducted  state,  shar- 
ing alike  its  duties  and  privileges,  and  not  in  the 
present  anomalous  position  with  regard  to  its 
government.  He  is  not  a  suffragist,  as  a  fixed 
attitude,  because  he  is  so  much  more,  and  sees  so 
plainly  that  the  ballot  is  but  an  incidental  step, 
though  an  important  one,  to  full  economic  par- 
ticipation in  social  life  before  the  law.  In  this 
respect,  he  closely  affiliates  with  Ibsen,  who,  it 
will  be  remembered,  when  asked  for  an  express 
indorsement  of  their  movement  by  a  Suffragist 
club,  declined  a  definite  tying  up  to  what  in  his 
view  was  an  incident  in  a  larger  and  longer 
struggle,  a  means  to  an  end.  But  unquestiona- 
bly, part  of  the  Shavian  social  vision  takes  in 
that  coming  type  of  woman  who  is  glimpsed  as  a 
glorified  companion  of  man,  joint  worker  with 
man   towards    superman   by   means    of   the   life- 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  197 

force,  instead  of  the  pretty-doll  type  illustrated 
by  Nora. 

Since  Shaw  believes  that  the  only  thing  the 
matter  with  the  poor  is  poverty,  he  naturally  de- 
duces that  the  socialization  of  production  and  ex- 
change would  tend  to  make  poor  persons  the 
sporadic  exception  rather  than  a  defined  class ; 
all  the  misery,  want,  crime,  and  devastation 
wrought  by  the  numerousness  of  those  who  lack 
the  means  of  livelihood  being  thus  mitigated,  and, 
logically,  in  the  end  removed.  But  not  only  is 
poverty  the  matter  with  the  poor;  uselessness  is 
the  matter  with  the  rich ;  meaning,  that  if  the 
rich  become  useful,  which,  by  the  way,  some  of 
them  do,  there  is  no  objection  to  their  being  rich 
unless  that  in  so  becoming  they  unfairly  block 
the  rights  of  others,  namely,  the  poor.  And  just 
as  truly  as  he  cries  up  the  worthy  rich,  his  ob- 
jection not  being  to  mone}^,  which  he  lauds  to 
the  skies  in  certain  plays,  notably  "  Major  Bar- 
bara," his  attack  being  directed  against  the  un- 
fair sequestration  of  wealth  at  the  expense  of 
others :  so  he  is  perfectly  open-eyed  in  his  vindi- 
cation of  the  poor  and  the  blame  he  puts  upon 
present    social    laws    and    conceptions    for    the 


198  BERNARD  SHAW 

sorry  case  of  the  proletariat,  in  recognizing  that 
derelicts  and  hopeless  incompetents  are  inevita- 
ble. This  class  of  folk  is  made  up  of  those  who, 
if  made  solvent  today,  would  be  insolvent  tomor- 
row by  their  own  inability  to  adjust  with  their 
environment.  In  his  more  whimsical  mood  of 
raillery,  Shaw  would  ^ispose  of  such  waste  ma- 
terial by  some  drastic  removal  by  force;  more 
seriously,  he  would  take  care  of  the  wastrels  and 
wasters  through  some  beneficial  agency  like  pen- 
sions, and  enforced  work.  But  continually,  this 
writer  of  plays  who  is  also  an  earnest  student  of 
social  wrongs,  disclaims  the  power  to  offer  the 
remedy.  In  closing  a  discussion  of  the  socializa- 
tion of  eugenics,  for  example,  he  frankly  says: 
"  It  is  idle  for  an  individual  writer  to  carry  so 
great  a  matter  further  in  a  pamphlet.  A  con- 
ference on  the  subject  is  the  next  step  needed." 
In  other  words,  Shaw's  function  is  to  suggest  and 
stimulate  and  prod  on  to  action.  This  is  why  he 
is  not  a  philosopher  in  the  full  sense:  he  elects 
another  and  perhaps  more  useful  role. 

Bernard  Shaw  has  one  powerful  ally  in  his 
views  on  social  betterment  and  reform.  I  refer 
to  Time.     Sundry  of  his  ideas,  that  concerning 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  199 

eugenics,  or  the  pensioning  of  motherhood,  for 
instance,  have  been  widely  accepted  in  legal 
enactment  during  the  twenty  or  more  years  since 
he  first  promulgated  them.  And  looking  at  the 
socialistic  ideal  at  its  broadest  and  best,  as  the 
socialization  of  production  and  exchange,  with 
no  illegitimate  encroachment  upon  private  prop- 
erty and  individual  interests,  there  can  be  no 
question  that  the  principle  has  been  accepted 
and  put  into  practice  with  increasing  frequency. 
With  regard  to  our  municipalities,  in  fact,  the 
socialistic  trend  has  been  marked.  So  true  is 
this,  that  in  a  recent  address  the  United  States 
Commissioner  of  Immigration  declared  it  was 
now  apparent  that  the  city  of  tomorrow  will 
take  over  the  public  ownership  of  such  utilities 
as  the  street  railway  and  lighting  plant,  as  a 
matter  of  course.  The  benefits  accruing  in  those 
cases  where  it  has  been  tried  are  too  obvious 
not  to  act  as  object-lessons.  Certain  represen- 
tative European  cities  have  long  since  shown  the 
way;  our  own  cities  have  begun  to  follow.  Nor 
can  it  be  doubted  that  in  a  scheme  of  local 
self-government  like  ours,  a  successfully  estab- 
lished system  locally  illustrating  a  general  truth 


200  BERNARD  SHAW 

will  be  sure  to  influence  state  and  federal  action 
in  the  end.  Shaw  merely  suffers  under  the  disad- 
vantage of  being  a  little  ahead  of  his  day;  a  dis- 
advantage steadily  lessened  as  he  grows  older. 
Broadly  speaking,  if  we  will  but  separate  his 
whimsicality  of  mood  and  statement  from  the  un- 
derlying principles  of  his  position,  we  shall  be 
able  to  discover  him  as  both  sane  and  sound  in 
the  main  contention. 

It  is  probable  that  the  feature  of  Shaw's 
general  social  theory  which  awakens  the  greatest 
opposition  and  breeds  misunderstanding,  is  his 
idea  of  sex  relations,  his  conception  of  what  is 
called  love,  and  the  results  of  it  in  the  life  of  the 
family  and  society.  This  arouses  more  violent 
prejudice  than  any  advocacy  of  the  socialization 
of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution,  for 
the  excellent  reason  that  it  is  the  person  who 
fears  the  expropriation  of  his  private  property, 
in  the  main,  who  becomes  alarmed  at  the  word, 
socialism ;  in  other  words,  the  capitalist,  for  the 
galled  jade  winces,  naturally.  But  when  a  man 
cries  it  out  from  the  housetops  that  so-called  love 
is  dust  in  the  eyes  of  truth,  he  hits  the  tender 
spot,  not  of  a  class  or  a  favored  few,  but  of  all 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  201 

of  us;  we  are  all  involved  in  an  attack  upon  the 
sacrosanct  thing  around  which  cluster  our  holi- 
est memories  and  beneath  which  germinate  our 
deepest  emotions. 

But  it  has  become  evident  in  the  examination 
of  the  specific  plays,  and  of  Shaw's  handling  of 
the  English  language  in  general,  that  he  exhibits 
himself  as  antisympathetic  not  to  love  as  a 
sentiment  based  upon  mutual  respect  and  clear- 
seeing,  but  rather  to  that  sort  of  passion  in 
which  the  contracting  parties  are  viciously  set- 
ting up  an  imaginary  idol,  to  be  inevitably 
smashed  in  the  disillusionment  to  follow  the  post- 
nuptial awakening.  As  usual,  in  order  to  shock 
us  into  thinking,  he  gives  his  meaning  the  fillip 
of  interest  which  comes  from  an  apparently  con- 
tradictory statement.  The  natural  history  of 
man,  which  it  is  his  object,  as  it  was  Balzac's,  to 
stud}^  and  set  down,  is  obscured  by  this  romantic 
mist  which  the  wrong  use  of  love  throws  in  the 
eyes  of  all  concerned,  and  especially  in  those  of 
the  two  persons  most  concerned  in  the  transac- 
tion. The  life-force  can  be  relied  upon  to  furnish 
the  attraction  which  shall  draw  a  man  and  a 
woman  together  in  a  way  to  lead  to  matrimony, 


202  BERNARD  SHAW 

or  to  its  undesirable  free-love  equivalent.  But 
Shaw  would  ask  the  self-conscious  reason,  not  op- 
posing but  cooperating  with  the  life-force,  to  con- 
trol the  destiny  of  lovers,  and  hence  of  the  race, 
by  the  exercise  of  a  common  sense  which  refuses 
to  be  fooled  when  the  most  important  thing  is 
about  to  happen  that  can  happen,  not  only  to 
the  pair  who  are  central  but  to  all  society  of 
which  they  are  an  inseparable  part.  He  is  so 
bold  as  to  ask  man  to  give  up  the  pretty  legend 
that  Cupid  is  blind,  and  to  look  at  the  facts,  as 
he  would  look  at  them  in  other  vital  matters. 
This  request  and  attitude  are,  of  course,  ex- 
tremely repellent  to  all  who  cling  to  the  Cupid 
tale,  believing  that  if  it  be  abandoned,  romance 
will  fly  forever  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  Shaw 
deems  otherwise,  and  the  preconception  which  in- 
volves the  opinion  on  the  part  of  a  man  that  a 
woman  is  a  goddess  not  to  be  otherwise  en- 
treated; or  the  opinion  on  the  part  of  a  woman 
that  a  man  is  a  hero  incapable  of  human  reac- 
tions, he  deems  a  piece  of  vicious  traditionalism, 
to  be  robustly  exorcised,  root  and  branch.  And 
to  mitigate  this  somewhat  austere  faith,  he  hu- 
morously   recognizes    the   likelihood   that,   for   a 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  203 

long  time  to  come,  the  God  of  Love  will  continue 
to  be  pictured  as  blindfolded,  and  will  shoot  his 
arrows  at  the  bull's-eye  of  our  credulity. 

Upon  analysis,  then,  and  trying  to  see  the  gen- 
eral drift  and  meaning  of  the  social  teachings  or 
implications  of  Bernard  Shaw,  as  revealed  in  his 
drama :  and  bringing  them  into  harmony  with  his 
more  formal  and  sober  theories  as  set  forth  in 
his  economic  writings,  one  is  likely  to  find  that 
here  is  a  man  whose  views  at  bottom  are  per- 
fectly consistent  (his  views  detached  from  his 
manner  of  presentation),  and  those  of  the  pro- 
gressive social  thinkers  in  that  field;  the  varia- 
tions being  such  as  not  to  invalidate  the  state- 
ment. One  realizes  that  here  is  a  popularizer  of 
thought  in  a  field  given  over  to  the  specialist  and 
to  dryasdust  investigation;  a  writer  of  plays, 
which  means  traditionally  one  who  amuses  the 
masses ;  who  yet,  while  he  frankly  accepts  the 
limitation  and  first  of  all  offers  entertainment  in 
the  playhouse,  nevertheless  has  beneath  this  aim 
and  result  a  desire  to  spread  the  news  and  bring 
the  gospel  to  the  multitude ;  who,  by  his  own  con- 
fession, is  willing  to  foster  the  G.  B.  S.  legend, 
if  only,  because  he  is  supposed  to  be  piquantly 


204  BERNARD  SHAW 

naughty  and  destructively  iconoclastic,  he  can 
thereby  attract  such  general  attention  as  to  make 
matters  like  divorce,  eugenics,  and  motherhood 
pensions,  food  for  public  discussion  and  vitally 
operative  in  the  thought  of  the  day.  That  some- 
what of  pleasure  in  his  personal  prominence  and 
profit  in  the  practical  results  of  his  dramatic 
labor  may  enter  into  this  more  impersonal  and 
laudable  ambition,  does  not  in  the  least  qualify 
the  fact  of  his  beneficent  service.  No  man  has 
been  franker  in  disclaiming  unselfish  aims ;  Shaw 
would  be  the  last  person  to  deny  his  enjoyment 
in  his  prestige,  and  has  that  peculiar  form  of 
modesty  which  consists  in  vociferously  crying  up 
his  own  virtues ;  a  form  not  alone  of  modesty,  by 
the  way,  but  of  honesty  as  well.  He  is  of  all 
men  most  foolish  who  thinks  that  when  Bernard 
Shaw  gravely  considers  the  question  of  his  su- 
periority to  Shakspere,  he  is  an  egoist  in  the 
ordinary  meaning  of  the  word. 

The  popularizer  of  anything  is  not  of  necessity 
shallow  or  viciously  subversive  of  the  truth.  It 
may  happen  that,  in  the  fullness  of  time,  criticism 
will  have  successfully  sifted  Shaw's  essentials  of 
meaning  from  his   apparently  irresponsible   con- 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  205 

tradictions  and  whimsicality  of  manner,  and  find 
him  to  be  a  stimulating  social  thinker,  sound  in 
substance  beneath  the  fantastic  embroidery  of 
his  speech  and  the  criss-cross  of  his  dialectic,  tre- 
mendously earnest  in  intention,  and  doing  yeoman 
work  in  making  the  general  public  aware  of 
problems  that  without  him,  or  such  as  he,  they 
would  certainly  pass  by  on  the  other  side.  To 
have  made  an  inert  mass  quiver  with  interest 
about  an  important  social  topic,  instead  of  sleep- 
ing supine  in  its  presence,  surely  this  is  some- 
thing; one  who  does  it  has  done  a  community 
service,  and  been,  intellectually,  a  good  citizen. 

But  his  personal  ideal  goes  further  and  is  more 
explicit  than  this.  Let  us  hear  his  own  state- 
ment: 

"  The  final  ideal  for  civic  life  is  that  every  man 
and  woman  should  set  before  themselves  this 
goal:  that  by  the  labor  of  their  lifetime  they 
shall  pay  the  debt  of  their  rearing  and  education, 
and  also  contribute  sufficient  for  a  handsome 
maintenance  during  their  old  age.  And  more 
than  that.  Why  should  not  a  man  say:  When  I 
die,  my  country  shall  be  in  my  debt?  Any  man 
who  has   any  religious  belief  will  have  dreamed 


206  BERNARD  SHAW 

the  dream  that  it  is  not  only  possible  to  die  with 
his  country  in  his  debt,  but  with  God  in  his  debt 
also." 

This  is  a  remarkable  manifesto,  and  several 
things  in  it  may  be  noted.  First,  the  acceptance 
of  the  individual's  duty  to  society;  second,  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  idealist's  dream  of  bet- 
terment, which  connects  Shaw  with  a  radiant  line 
from  Plato  to  William  Morris ;  and  third,  the 
distinct  confession  of  faith  in  the  linking  of  a  re- 
ligious obligation  with  social  service;  it  is  a 
service  which  unites  the  individual  not  with 
brother  man  alone,  but  with  God;  the  aspirations 
are  twin  aspirations,  help  for  man  and  harmony 
with  God.  And  it  would  be  ungenerous  not  to 
add  that  Shaw's  personal  and  private  life  are  in 
complete  and  honest  accord  with  this  faith  that 
is  in  him. 

It  is,  be  it  observed,  a  this-world  religion; 
not  the  other-world  religion  that  was  earlier 
dominant.  In  this  respect,  Shaw  is  thoroughly  a 
modern.  His  heaven  is  not  a  palace  in  the  sky, 
but  a  purified  planet  in  the  solar  system.  God 
is  a  force  among  men  that  makes  for  righteous- 
ness, not  the  "  big  blue  man  "  of  the  child's  con- 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  207 

ception.  That  is  what  he  means  by  the  cryptic 
epigram :  "  Beware  of  the  man  whose  God  is  in 
the  skies."  If  his  God  is  not  operative  in  his 
daily  life  here  on  earth,  Shaw  has  no  use  for  him. 
He  might  be  described  not  ineptly,  in  broad 
terms,  as  a  Positivist,  if  one  were  anxious  to  fit 
a  philosophic  term  upon  him.  Certainly  he  has 
the  ideal  of  that  aspect  of  thought;  and  would 
with  George  Eliot  cry: 

"  0,  may  I  join  the  choir  invisible 
Of  those  immortal  dead  who  live  again 
In  minds  made  better  by  their  presence,^^ 

This  kind  of  living-again  is  quite  sufficient  for 
Shaw,  and  keys  him  up  to  social  service  and  per- 
sonal salvation:  the  salvation  he  does  not  seek, 
since  his  way  of  finding  his  life  is  to  lose  it  in 
that  same  service. 

Bernard  Shaw  dreams  forward  to  a  socialized 
democracy  where  through  selective  breeding  the 
citizenship  shall  be  so  improved  as  to  make 
supermen  and  superwomen  an  attained  type,  not 
a  sporadic  phenemenon ;  where  the  drone  shall  be 
replaced  by  the  worker  under   right   conditions, 


208  BERNARD  SHAW 

and  the  criminal  no  longer  has  any  justification 
because  of  inequitable  laws  or  conventions ;  where 
the  truths  about  life  and  society  are  recognized 
and  the  highest  in  mankind  is  worshiped  as  that 
empirical  deity  which  alone  will  save  the  wor- 
shiper ;  a  Positivist  religion  which  sees  the 
divine  in  the  human  and  sees  God  as  an  evolu- 
tionary conception.  It  is  a  noble  dream  and  has 
been  well  expressed  in  the  words  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Father  Keegan  in  "  John  Bull's  Other 
Island "  :  it  is  a  beautifully  mystic  statement 
that  is  social-spiritual,  made  by  one  who  is 
spiritual  in  his  social  view  and  social  in  his 
spirituality : 

Broadbent.  Once  when  I  was  a  small 
kid,  I  dreamt  I  was  in  heaven.  .  .  .  What 
is  it  like  in  your  dreams? 

Keegan.  In  my  dreams  it  is  a  country 
where  the  state  is  the  Church  and  the  Church 
the  people:  three  in  one  and  one  in  three. 
It  is  a  commonwealth  where  work  is  play  and 
play  is  life:  three  in  one  and  one  in  three. 
It  is  a  temple  in  which  the  priest  is  the  wor- 
shiper and  the  worshiper  the  worshiped: 
three  in  one  and  one  in  three.     It  is  a  god- 


THE  SOCIAL  THINKER  209 

head  in  which  all  life  is  human  and  all  hu- 
manity divine:  three  in  one  and  one  in  three. 
It  is,  in  short,  the  dream  of  a  madman. 
This   is   intensely   autobiographic;   I   doubt   if 
there  be  a  passage  in  all  Shaw's  writings  that  is 
more    so,    even    including   the   half-mocking,    yet 
deeply  pathetic  word  in  which  in  the  guise  of  the 
Father  who  is  not  mad,  but  only  the  mistaken 
idealist,  he  tells  us  that  the  world  will  not  see  the 
truth,  because  of  the  truth-bringer.     And  the  ut- 
terance resolves  itself  naturally  into  a  considera- 
tion of  the  poetic  and  philosophic  elements  that 
go  to  round  out  the  full  circle  of  his  working 
hypothesis  about  life. 

For  Shaw's  service  is  not  all  embraced  in  what 
are  strictly  his  social  views.  There  is  another 
and  a  vastly  interesting  aspect  of  his  thought 
and  meaning  which  remains  to  be  considered:  his 
philosophical  and  poetic  implications.  These 
are  the  more  important  to  consider  in  that  they 
are  the  very  aspects  of  his  thought  and  teaching 
likely  to  be  overlooked,  or  at  least  minimized  in 
the  ordinary  quick  and  shallow  estimate  of  the 
man.  They  represent  the  least  obvious  phase  of 
his   complex  personality;   yet   are   they   of   deep 


210  BERNARD  SHAW 

significance  when  we  come  to  the  attempt  to  see 
him  in  the  round,  and  get  a  realization  of  the 
relative  emphasis  to  be  put  upon  one  who  so 
easily  lends  himself  to  newspaper  caricature. 
Bernard  Shaw  out  of  drawing  suffers  exactly  as 
any  serious  man  suffers  in  that  process;  and  add 
to  this  the  fact  that  he  is  just  the  sort  of  figure 
especially  offering  itself  for  misrepresentation, 
and  that  he  has  aided  and  abetted,  maliciously, 
in  the  efforts  to  make  a  figurehead  out  of  a  real 
human  being,  and  one  sees  how  necessary  it  is 
to  try  for  a  proportionate  picture.  This  most 
difficult  part  of  the  delineation  of  Shaw  must 
now  be  essayed  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC 

In  a  letter  in  the  London  Times,  incidental  to 
his  controversy  with  Mr.  W.  H.  Mallock,  Bernard 
Shaw  wrote :  "  They  regard  me  as  a  cynic  when 
I  tell  them  that  even  the  cleverest  man  will  be- 
lieve anything  he  wishes  to  believe,  in  spite  of  all 
the  facts  and  text-books  in  the  world." 

One  might  well  develop  an  elaborate  argument 
to  the  conclusion  that  all  our  vaunted  use  of 
logic  and  pride  in  clear  thinking  are  misleading, 
inasmuch  as  beneath  the  ratiocinative  processes 
there  is  with  human  beings  at  their  best  and  high- 
est of  evolution  a  deep  undertow  of  emotion  and 
impulse  which  really  floats  the  mind  on  to  its 
apparently  deductive  conclusions.  The  remark 
of  Arnold's  that  three-fourths  of  all  self-con- 
scious life  is  lived  in  the  emotions  is  a  profound 
one. 

And  the  thought  may  be  applied  to  Shaw,  tak- 
ing his  own  words  out  of  his  mouth  and  good-na- 
211 


212  BERNARD  SHAW 

turedly  turning  them  against  him.  He  is  a  vig- 
orous thinker  whose  style  is  admirably  clear  and 
cogent  as  an  instrument  to  assist  him  to  put  forth 
his  meaning.  But  au  fond,  his  is  an  impulsive 
and  intensely  emotional  nature  which,  swept 
along  by  honest  conviction,  races  to  its  goal  of 
conclusion,  and  in  common  with  all  men,  uses  the 
data  gathered  from  investigation  to  buttress  a 
belief  that  is  not  so  much  forced  upon  him  by 
analysis  as  immediately  appealing  to  his  intui- 
tions,— the  life-force  at  work  in  him.  If  one 
doubts  that  predispositions  settle  the  subsequent 
deductions,  even  in  the  finest  type  of  mind,  one 
has  only  to  collate  the  opinions  upon  the  pres- 
ent war,  and  see  how  the  matter  of  nationality 
inevitably  settles  the  attitude  and  arguments 
of  the  thinker.  Each,  with  his  particular  ethnic 
bias,  can  deduce  with  admirable  logic  results  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  another  thinker  whose 
country  happens  to  be  on  the  other  side  of  the 
debate.  The  leading  minds  of  Europe  have  been 
on  parade  in  this  fashion,  and  proved  conclu- 
sively that  logic  will  never  be  allowed  to  inter- 
fere with  feeling. 

It  is  by  the  application  of  this  principle,  too 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  213 

often  overlooked,  that  help  will  be  afforded  the 
student  of  Shaw  when,  as  will  frequently  turn 
out,  he  seems  contradictory  or  inconsistent.  He 
feels  his  way  to  the  truth  and  then  demonstrates 
it,  at  least  to  his  own  satisfaction,  and  often  to 
yours.  And  it  is  the  feeling  beneath  the  argu- 
ment that  gives  it  warmth  and  fascination. 

It  is  this  truth  about  certain  of  his  modes  of 
thought  and  ways  of  expression,  coupled  with  his 
tendency  to  bend  his  mental  processes  to  the  de- 
mand of  his  sense  of  right,  his  natural  affiliations 
and  sympathies,  that  must  not  for  a  moment  be 
dropped  from  mind  when  we  try  to  understand 
and  relate  to  his  general  interpretation  of  life 
his  fairly  mystic  explanation  of  man  as  spirit 
and  the  universe  as  an  experiment  of  the  life-force. 

Indeed,  the  side  of  Shaw's  personality  which  is 
hinted  at  in  the  title  of  this  chapter,  is  somewhat 
puzzlingly  in  evidence  when  we  strive  to  get  a  , 
complete  view  of  him  and  his  work.  It  is  inter- 
woven more  or  less  with  his  social  teachings  and 
yet  can  be  seen  to  be  separate  from  them.  The 
previous  remark  that  he  is  not  a  philosopher  is 
by  no  means  meant  to  be  interpreted  that  a  cer- 
tain philosophical  attitude  was  not  plainly  to  be 


214  BERNARD  SHAW 

detected  in  his  thought;  but  only  that  a  sys- 
tematized and  organic  statement  of  it  was  not 
vouchsafed  us.  The  view  runs  through  all  his 
thinking,  and  explains  some  of  the  seeming  con- 
tradictions and  inconsistencies  in  his  writing. 
How,  for  instance,  can  it  be  reconciled  that  a 
thinker  whose  general  tendency  is  to  show  himself 
a  man  of  his  day  in  his  preference  for  scientific 
conceptions  and  methods  of  thought,  is  yet  the 
man  who  boldly,  and  as  it  were,  in  the  very  teeth 
of  science,  challenges  the  germ  theory  of  disease 
and  fights  against  vaccination  .^^  We  must  make 
an  attempt  at  least  to  show  such  an  apparent 
volte-face  possible  if  we  would  see  him  as  he  is; 
and  the  riddle  is  not  solved  until  we  take  into 
account  a  part  of  his  nature  which  lies  deeper 
than  intellectual  processes  and  reminds  us  of  his 
own  words :  "  the  unconscious  self  is  the  real 
genius.  Your  breathing  goes  wrong  the  moment 
your  conscious  self  meddles  with  it."  I  believe  it 
to  be  this  subliminal  energized  daimon  of  Shaw, 
to  borrow  the  Socratic  name  for  it,  which  goes 
far  to  explain  him, — and  moreover  to  give  him 
his  value  for  the  world.  Here  stands  out  in 
sudden,    startling    relief    a    side    of    his    nature 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  215 

which  may  seem  oddly  at  variance  with  the  Shaw 
who  writes  so  clearly  on  municipal  trading;  a 
side  that  compels  us,  nevertheless,  to  see  and 
say  that  he  has  deep-lying  qualities  of  imagina- 
tion and  emotion  hardly  to  be  suspected  by  one 
who  generalizes  from  his  more  customary  appear- 
ance as  a  hard-headed  social  controversialist. 
To  expect  an  analytic  pamphleteer  and  find  a 
poet  mystic,  is  certainly  something  of  a  shock; 
another  shock  from  the  man  whose  business 
seems  to  be  to  eject  us  violently  from  our  com- 
placent beds  of  easy,  settled  conviction  about 
things  in  general. 

In  so  far  as  he  seizes  on  the  idea  of  superman, 
and  then  endeavors  to  attain  to  the  higher  type 
of  development  through  the  agency  of  the  social- 
ized state,  Shaw  looks  to  Nietzsche  for  certain 
parts  of  his  scheme  of  social  amelioration.  But 
he  separates  from  him  squarely  and  forever  in 
the  German's  teaching  of  the  duty  of  the  strong 
to  override  the  weak  and  in  his  contempt  for 
slave  (Christian)  morality.  In  complete  con- 
trast with  this  view,  which  is  the  application  to 
human  society  of  the  stern  biologic  law  of  the 
survival    of    the    fittest,    Shaw    with    his    warm 


216  BERNARD  SHAW 

espousal  of  the  cause  of  the  poor,  the  weak,  and 
the  suffering,  would  help  brother  man  in  the  up- 
ward path  even  if  in  so  doing  he  held  back  the 
quick  coming  of  Overman.  Tender  consideration 
for  the  derelicts  and  incompetents, — though  they 
irritate  him  extremely,  and  in  a  whimsical  mood 
which  hides  earnest  purpose  none  the  less,  he  ex- 
coriates them  and  proposes  speedy  extermina- 
tion,— is  surely  his  general  attitude.  Here  we 
probably  find  a  reason  for  his  contemptuous 
flings  at  the  evolutionary  doctrine  and  at  the 
deification  of  the  laws  of  physical  science  as  ap- 
plied to  human  psychology  and  social  better- 
ment. He  would  with  Huxley  "  oppose  the  cos- 
mic process,"  wherever  it  interferes  with  the 
higher  law  of  altruistic  consideration  of  brother 
man.  Indeed,  his  tenderness  does  not  stop  with 
the  arbitrary  line  set  up  between  man  and  so- 
called  brute,  for  his  vegetarianism  is  the  out- 
ward sign  of  a  recognition  of  animal  rights  as 
well,  the  view  which  Salt  made  so  sympathetic 
years  ago.  To  Shaw  it  is  repellent  to  eat  "  the 
slaughtered  carcasses  "  of  his  humbler  brothers 
of  the  field  or  air.  And  this  is  a  moral  repel- 
lency  as  well   as   an  esthetic   objection.     In  the 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  217 

same  way,  taking  refuge  in  the  dictates  of 
his  spiritual  nature,  he  rejects  with  scorn  the 
teachings  which  declare  that  we  must  arm  our- 
selves against  contagious  physical  trouble  by  in- 
oculation or  other  preventives.  The  idealist  in 
him  resents  the  tyranny  of  the  flesh  implied  in 
these  scientific  conceptions  and  beliefs,  and  hence 
he  presents  the  odd  spectacle  of  a  thinker  who 
in  many  ways  seems  peculiarly  the  product  of 
the  age  of  Darwin,  Spencer,  and  Wallace,  of 
Haeckel,  Lamarck,  and  Nietzsche,  valorously 
combating  the  very  theories  which  are  the  ap- 
plied logic  of  the  scientist's  faith.  It  is  the  poet, 
the  idealist,  the  mystic,  at  war  with  the  shrewd 
publicist  and  social  student. 

The  same  tendency  in  Shaw  leads  him  to  ac- 
cept with  warmth  and  preach  with  vigor  the  idea 
of  the  life-force,  another  Nietzschean  conception 
which  he  adapts  to  his  own  purposes.  What  is 
this  power  as  he  conceives  it,  and  what  its  ap- 
plication to  man  in  the  Shavian  faith? 

The  life-force  is  a  modern  representation  of 
God,  not  so  much  a  Being,  as  a  Becoming  tend- 
ency in  the  universe,  an  upward  striving  which, 
working    through    countless    seons,    has    brought 


218  BERNARD  SHAW 

man  far  along  in  his  toilsome  journey  towards 
Overman.  And  it  is  Shaw's  idea  that  if  the  in- 
dividual will  but  cease  from  conventional  inhibi- 
tions and  traditional  negations,  if  he  be  not 
dominated  too  much  by  a  series  of  sacred  Don'ts, 
which  shift  with  time  and  country  and  social 
milieu;  and  the  man  be  himself,  join  himself  to, 
and  become  a  part  of,  the  life-force,  he  will  thus 
be  cooperative  with  the  great  creative  purpose  of 
the  scheme  of  things,  and,  as  the  theologian  would 
put  it,  be  reconciled  with  God.  It  is  this  view 
which  gives  its  cogency  to  the  following  words  of 
this  curious  mixture  of  materialist  and  mystic: 

"This  is  the  true  joy  of  life:  the  being  used 
for  a  purpose  recognized  by  yourself  as  a  mighty 
one.  Being  a  force  of  nature,  instead  of  a 
feverish,  selfish  little  clod  of  ailments  and  griev- 
ances, complaining  that  the  world  will  not  devote 
itself  to  making  you  happy." 

Bernard  Shaw  cries  out,  "  Hitch  yourself  to 
the  life-force,"  very  much  with  the  same  mean- 
ing which  led  Emerson  to  cry,  "  Hitch  your 
wagon  to  a  star,"  save  that  the  older  thinker  was 
for  the  moment  thinking  most  of  the  individual, 
while  the  younger  is  thinking  of  the  social  aim. 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  219 

the  racial  result.  Emerson  is  more  purely  an  in- 
dividualist than  Shaw,  whose  individualism  is 
tempered  by  his  socialism  and  his  social  yearn- 
ing. The  difference  is  not  alone  in  the  men,  but 
in  their  generation. 

Again  and  again  this  faith  in  man  as  able  to 
connect  himself  with  the  celestial  stream  of  things, 
crops  out  in  Shaw's  dramas.  It  is  strong  and 
clear  as  we  saw  in  "  The  Showing-up  of  Blanco 
Posnet,"  one  of  his  most  significant  works  with 
this  essential  philosophy  in  mind.  Blanco,  much 
distressed  in  mind  to  find  himself  neither  a 
straight  bad  man  nor  a  good  one,  harangues  the 
"boys,"  present  in  the  court  room: 

"  What's  this  game  that  upsets  our  game  ? 
For  seems  to  me  there's  two  games  being  played. 
Our  game  is  a  rotten  game  that  makes  me  feel 
that  I'm  dirt  and  that  you're  all  as  rotten  as  me. 
T'other  game  may  be  a  silly  game;  but  it  ain't 
rotten."  And  he  expresses  his  faith  in  God  in 
this  fashion: 

"  You  bet  He  didn't  make  us  for  nothing ;  and 
He  wouldn't  have  made  us  at  all  if  He  could 
have  done  His  work  without  us.  By  Gum,  that 
must  be  what  we're  for!     He'd  never  have  made 


220  BERNARD  SHAW 

us  to  be  rotten  drunken  blackguards  like  me,  and 
good-for-nothing  rips  like  Feemy.  He  made  me 
because  He  had  a  job  for  me.  He  let  me  run 
loose  till  the  job  was  ready;  and  then  I  had  to 
come  along  and  do  it,  hanging  or  no  hanging. 
And  I  tell  you  it  didn't  feel  rotten:  it  felt  bully, 
just  bully." 

And  when  the  pseudo-religionist.  Elder  Daniels, 
gets  off  the  usual  cant :  "  Be  of  good  cheer, 
brothers.  Fight  on.  Seek  the  path,"  Blanco 
contemptuously  turns  upon  him  with,  "  No. 
No  more  paths.  No  more  broad  and  narrow. 
No  more  good  and  bad.  There's  no  good  and 
bad;  but,  by  Jiminy,  gents,  there's  a  rotten 
game  and  there's  a  great  game.  I  played  the 
rotten  game;  but  the  great  game  was  played  on 
me;  and  now  I'm  for  the  great  game  every  time. 
Amen.  Gentlemen,  let  us  adjourn  to  the  saloon. 
I  stand  the  drinks." 

Here  is  once  more  set  forth  picturesquely  and 
pathetically  this  sense  of  the  overruling  mystic 
power  which  controls,  perforce,  the  instincts  of 
rough-and-ready  humanity,  and  compels  it  to 
adopt  the  motto  per  aspera  ad  astra. 

We  saw  in  studying  the  two  plays  that,  allow- 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  221 

ing  for  the  difference  of  setting  and  type,  this  is 
exactly  what  we  get  from  another  of  Shaw's 
protagonists,  again  an  American,  Dick  Dudgeon 
in  "  The  Devil's  Disciple." 

Surely,  no  one  can  question  that  this  is  a  mys- 
tic conception  of  man;  it  is  the  old  theory  of  in- 
spiration in  a  new  garb  of  modernity;  it  is  the 
Delphic  oracle  under  another  name,  the  Christian 
idea  of  God  Immanent,  and  the  "  still,  small 
voice  "  of  conscience  bidding  the  sinner  do  right. 
It  does  not  at  all  change  the  concept  to  dress  it 
out  with  the  terms  of  present-day  physical 
science;  to  call  it  the  subliminal  self  working  in 
us  and  more  powerful  than  any  self-conscious 
reasoning  process.  And  Shaw  is  a  hearty  be- 
liever (in  the  religious  sense)  in  this  wonderful 
power  that  transcends  man  and  gives  him  his 
deepest  significance.  This,  it  may  be  clearly 
seen,  is  a  metaphysical  notion,  pure  and  simple, 
a  fine  one,  and  one  that  appeals  to  that  tj^pe  of 
modern  mind,  which,  while  accepting  scientific 
conceptions,  yet  is  by  nature  religious,  and  needs 
for  its  comfort  and  best  expression  an  aim  and 
an  authority  beyond  the  domain  of  physical 
tests   and  proofs.      This   faith  in  the   supercon- 


•/- 


222  BERNARD  SHAW 

science,  or  the  subliminal  operation  of  the  Ego, 
is  implicit  in  much  modern  thinking.  We  get  it 
in  Bergson  when  he  says :  "  we  wish  to  know  the 
reason  why  we  have  made  up  our  mind,  and  we 
find  that  we  have  decided  without  any  reason,  and 
perhaps  against  every  reason.  But,  in  certain 
cases,  that  is  the  best  reason." 

Shaw  finds  his  "  reason "  in  this  evolutional 
Higher  Will,  as  we  might  call  it,  of  man.  He 
believes  in  the  will  to  live  of  Schopenhauer,  the 
will  to  power  of  Nietzsche,  and  the  Wish  of 
Freud;  his  philosophy,  like  theirs,  is  a  wilful  one. 
But  he  adds  an  altruistic  aspiration  in  the  serv- 
ice of  others  which  is  absent  from  their  teach- 
ing, and  thus  gets  the  lift  into  all  his  work 
which  is  always  in  the  thinking  of  the  sincere 
idealist. 

It  is  only  through  man  that  this  will-to-aspire 
can  get  itself  into  action  and  just  here  is  man's 
significance,  justification,  and  glory.  And  man's 
sense  of  thus  being  pricked  on,  so  that  the  noble 
in  him  must  be  ever  uneasy  unless  he  is  cooperat- 
ing with  the  life-force  in  this  fashion,  is  the  ever- 
lasting gadfly  that  in  the  soul  of  man  stings  him 
into  worthy  action.     In  "  Man  and  Superman," 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  223 

which  is  of  all  the  plays  that  which  contains  the 
heart  of  his  doctrine,  he  makes  Don  Juan  say: 
"I  tell  you  that  as  long  as  I  can  conceive  some- 
thing better  than  myself,  I  cannot  be  easy  un- 
less I  am  striving  to  bring  it  into  existence  or 
clearing  the  way  for  it.  That  is  the  law  of  my  life. 
That  is  the  working  within  me  of  Life's  incessant 
aspiration  to  higher  organization,  wider,  deeper, 
intenser  self-consciousness  and  clearer  self-under- 
standing." This  need  puzzled  poor  Blanco,  but 
he  accepted  its  prompting,  nevertheless,  without 
any  hesitation.  His  "  By  gum,  that  must  be 
what  we're  for,"  is  Shaw  crystallized  and  a  su- 
preme affirmation  of  faith.  It  contains  the  whole 
Shavian  working  hypothesis  of  life. 

But  this  individual  connecting  himself  with  the 
life-force  might  be  mistaken  for  a  sort  of  fatal- 
ism; the  individual  becoming  an  automaton 
pushed  on  to  this  mystic  end  by  a  power  quite 
outside  his  own  volition.  Such  would  be  a  mis- 
representation of  Shaw's  full  meaning.  To  join 
the  life-force  is  to  be  free:  free  to  exercise  your 
long  cramped  unused  spiritual  muscles.  Thus, 
Margaret  in  "  Fanny's  First  Play,"  after  her 
escapade  in  the  dance  hall,  has  a  talk  with  her 


224  BERNARD  SHAW 

mother,  in  which  she  says :  "  I  shall  never  speak 
in  the  old  way  again.  I've  been  set  free  from 
this  silly  little  hole  of  a  house  and  all  its  pre- 
tenses. I  know  now  that  I  am  stronger  than 
you  and  Papa.  I  haven't  found  that  happiness 
of  yours  that  is  within  yourself;  but  I've  found 
strength.  For  good  or  evil,  I  am  set  free ;  and 
none  of  the  things  that  used  to  hold  me  can 
hold  me  now."  And  again  she  remarks  to  her 
sufficiently  horrified  parent :  "  I  was  set  free  for 
evil  as  well  as  for  good,"  meaning  that  the  price 
of  strength  is  freedom,  which,  of  course,  involves 
choice,  and  therefore  evil  as  something  to  whet 
one's  strength  upon. 

Extremely  interesting,  too,  when  we  are  en- 
deavoring to  come  to  close  grip  with  this  subtlest 
aspect  of  Shaw's  belief  and  teaching,  are  the 
highly  mystic  words  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
Mayoress  in  "  Getting  Married  " ;  words  so  star- 
tlingly  different  from  her  usual  self-controlled 
utterance  that  the  easy  thing  to  do  is  to  as- 
sume that  she  is  represented  as  having  a  "  con- 
trol "  in  the  spiritualistic  parlance,  and  so  is 
purely  passive  in  the  matter.  But  one  who  rec- 
ognizes   the    general    seriousness    of    the    writer 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  225 

must  perforce  find  significance  in  these  impas- 
sioned sentences,  in  which  there  appears  to  be  a 
statement  of  the  spiritual  relations  of  man  and 
woman  as  mystically  poetic  as  if  they  came  from 
a  Swedenborg  rather  than  a  Bernard  Shaw. 
Mrs.  George  has  a  right  to  vatic  words,  because, 
as  she  puts  it,  "  I've  been  myself.  I've  not  been 
afraid  of  myself.  And  at  last  I  have  escaped 
from  myself,  and  am  become  a  voice  for  them 
that  are  afraid  to  speak,  and  a  cry  for  the 
hearts  that  break  in  silence."  And  then  she  tells 
the  bishop  of  a  love  which  he  seems  to  have  in- 
spired in  her,  a  love  that  is  to  the  earth  loves 
as  the  light  of  some  solar  luminary  to  so  many 
candle  dips : 

"  When  you  loved  me  I  gave  you  the  whole 
sun  and  stars  to  play  with.  I  gave  you  eternity 
in  the  single  moment,  strength  of  the  mountains 
in  one  clasp  of  your  arms,  and  the  volume  of  all 
the  seas  in  one  impulse  of  your  soul.  A  moment 
only ;  but  was  it  not  enough  ?  Were  you  not 
paid  then  for  all  the  rest  of  your  struggle  on 
earth?  Must  I  mend  your  clothes  and  sweep 
your  floors  as  well?  Was  it  not  enough?  I 
paid   the   price   without   bargaining;   I   bore   the 


4 


226  BERNARD  SHAW?^'  , 

children  without  flinching;  wa*s  that  a  reason  for 
heaping  fresh  burdens  on  me?  I  carried  the 
child  in  my  arms;  must  I  carry  the  father  too? 
When  I  opened  the  gates  of  paradise,  were  you 
blind?  Was  it « Nothing  to  you?  When  all  the 
stars  sang  in  your  ears  and  all  the  winds  swept 
you  into  the  heart  of  heaven,  were  you  deaf? 
Were  you  dull?  Was  I  no  more  to  you  than  a 
bone  to  a  dog?  Was  it  not  enough?  We  spent 
eternity  together;  and  you  ask  me  for  a  little 
lifetime  more.  We  possessed  all  the  universe 
together;  and  you  ask  me  to  give  you  my  scanty 
wages  as  well.  I  have  given  you  the  greatest  of 
all  things ;  and  you  ask  me  to  give  you  little 
things.  I  gave  you  my  own  soul :  you  ask  me  for 
my  body  as  a  plaything.  Was  it  not  enough? 
Was  it  not  enough?  " 

Enigmatic?  If  you  will.  But,  of  a  verity, 
splendidly,  soaringly  spiritual,  and  surcharged 
with  mystic  implications.  It  is  as  if  this  mun- 
dane Mrs.  George  of  the  play  wished  to  remind 
us,  while  the  author  through  her  also  told  us, 
that  the  highest  conception  of  human  Love,  a 
thing  so  bandied  about  and  cheapened  and  made 
common    and    gross    and    of    the    earth    earthy, 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  227 

was  in  essence  a  supernal  sentiment;  that  in 
heaven  they  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in 
marriage,  their  amity  being  like  that  of  the 
angels. 

And  again,  in  "  Csesar  and  Cleopatra,"  when 
the  greatest  captain  of  Time,  alone  (as  he 
thinks)  in  the  moon-blanched  Egyptian  desert, 
whispers  to  the  Sphinx  the  inner  secrets  of  his 
personality,  we  seem  to  get  in  him,  as  an  impres- 
sive mouthpiece,  the  thinker's  conviction  that 
there  is  another  life  than  that  of  high  noon,  of 
ratiocination  and  of  commonsense;  and  that  the 
solution  of  both  personality  and  life,  since  all 
men  live  in  their  dreams,  is  here: 

"  Hail,  Sphinx :  salutation  from  Julius  Caesar ! 
I  have  wandered  in  many  lands  seeking  the  lost 
regions  from  which  my  birth  into  this  world 
exiled  me,  and  the  company  of  creatures  such  as 
myself.  I  have  found  flocks  and  pastures,  men 
and  cities,  but  no  other  Caesar,  no  air  native  to 
me,  no  man  kindred  to  me,  none  who  can  do  my 
day's  deed,  and  think  my  night's  thought.  In 
the  little  world  yonder,  Sphinx,  my  place  is  as 
high  as  yours  in  this  great  desert ;  only  I  wan- 
der, and  you  sit  still ;  I  conquer,  and  you  endure ; 


228  BERNARD  SHAW 

I  work  and  wonder,  you  watch  and  wait;  I 
look  up  and  am  dazzled,  look  down  and  am  dark- 
ened, look  round  and  am  puzzled,  whilst  your 
eyes  never  turn  from  looking  out  on  the  world — 
to  the  lost  region — the  home  from  which  we 
strayed.  Sphinx,  you  and  I,  strangers  to  the 
race  of  men,  are  no  strangers  to  one  another; 
have  I  not  been  conscious  of  you  and  of  this 
place  since  I  was  born?  Rome  is  a  madman's 
dream ;  this  is  my  reality.  These  starry  lamps 
of  yours  I  have  seen  from  afar  in  Gaul,  in 
Britain,  in  Spain,  in  Thessaly,  signaling  great 
secrets  to  some  eternal  sentinel  below,  whose  post 
I  never  could  find.  And  here  at  last  is  their 
sentinel, — an  image  of  the  constant  and  immortal 
part  of  my  life,  silent,  full  of  thoughts,  alone  in 
the  silver  desert.  Sphinx,  Sphinx:  I  have  climbed 
mountains  at  night  to  hear  in  the  distance  the 
stealthy  footfall  of  the  winds  that  chase  your 
sands  in  forbidden  play — our  invisible  children, 
O  Sphinx,  laughing  in  whispers.  My  way  hither 
was  the  way  of  destiny;  for  I  am  he  of  whose 
genius  you  are  the  sj^mbol:  part  brute,  part 
woman,  and  part  god, — nothing  of  the  man  in  me 
at  all.     Have  I  read  your  riddle,  Sphinx.?  " 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  229 

Incidentally,  it  may  be  remarked  that  this  is  a 
superb  burst  of  poetry,  a  passage  that  our  time 
will  not  willingly  let  die  out  of  the  swelling 
diapason  of  its  imaginative  expression.  But  it  is 
also  fascinating  for  the  philosophy  it  contains. 
I,  for  one,  sincerely  believe  that  Shaw  is  saying 
here  what  Emerson  says  in  his  great  essay  on 
love;  he  directs  our  attention  to  it  as  a  divine 
principle  far  above  and  beyond  our  petty  at- 
tempt to  catch  it  in  man-made  devices  called 
marriage;  a  principle  which  each  pair  of  lovers 
seizes  fleetingly,  but  then,  as  Browning  has  it, 

"  Then  the  good  minute  goes;  " 

a  principle  and  a  passion  by  which  the  whole 
creation  moves,  in  which  it  has  its  being;  Na- 
ture's way,  so  Emerson  points  out,  of  leading 
lovers  through  the  illusion  that  it  is  an  end  in  it- 
self, on  to  that  realization  which  culminates  in 
the  recognition  of  it  as  cosmic,  eternal,  not  of 
this  world,  but  of  all  the  worlds  that  be.  And 
for  Shaw,  the  way  whereby  this  may  be  seized  by 
the  individual  is  to  see  in  himself  a  reflection  of 
God   in  will   and  power    (when  we  join   the  life 


230  BERNARD  SHAW 

force,  the  elan  vital  of  Bergson)  and  then  work 
with  all  one's  might  for  the  social  bettering  of 
men  and  women. 

There  is  a  touch  of  this  same  mystic  poetry  in 
the  language  of  Marchbanks  in  "  Candida,"  and 
his  final  rejection  of  the  Morell  menage  because 
he  sees  that  his  destiny  demands  something  bet- 
ter and  beyond,  he  having 

"  The  desire  of  the  moth  for  the  star. 
Of  the  night  for  the  morrow. 
The  devotion  to  something  afar 
From  the  sphere  of  our  sorrow.^^ 

That  is  what  Shaw,  like  the  true  idealist  he  is 
in  this  recurrent  mood,  must  be  after;  the  dream 
that  is  behind  the  reality,  and  always  more  de- 
sirable. This  is  the  secret  of  Marchbanks  that 
has  so  puzzled  the  critics,  as  was  noted  in  the 
analysis  of  "  Candida."  An  American  went 
direct  to  the  author  himself  in  search  of  an  ex- 
planation of  a  rather  enigmatical  passage;  which 
had  already  been  whimsically  replied  to  by  Mr. 
Shaw,  as  one  can  see  by  consulting  Dr.  Hender- 
son's biography.     But  this  time,  instead  of  hid- 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  231 

ing  behind  his  mask  of  levity,  the  writer  gave  an 
answer  which  so  far  has  not  I  believe  been  given 
other  publicity  than  its  original  appearance  in 
a  western  college  paper,  and  is  well  worth  quota- 
tion here: 


Adelphi  Terrace, 
London,  W.  C, 
6  January,  1900. 
Dear  Sir: 

In  Candida  the  poet  begins  by  pursuing  hap- 
piness with  a  beloved  woman  as  the  object  of  his 
life.  When  at  last,  under  the  stress  of  a  most 
moving  situation,  she  paints  for  him  a  convincing 
picture  of  what  that  happiness  is,  he  sees  at  once 
that  such  happiness  could  never  fulfil  his  destiny. 
"  I  no  longer  desire  happiness — life  is  nobler 
than  that.  Out,  then,  into  the  night  with  me." 
That  is,  out  of  this  stuffy  little  nest  of  happiness 
and  sentiment  into  the  grandeur,  the  majesty, 
the  holiness  that  night  means  to  me,  the  poet. 
Candida  and  Morell  do  not  understand  this. 
Neither  did  you,  eh.^ 

G.  Bernard  Shaw. 


c 
The  correspondence  here  with  certain  words  of 
esar  in  the  passage  quoted,  will  not  escape  the 


232  BERNARD  SHAW 

judicious.  And  surely  the  idealist  is  the  same  as 
in  the  other  excerpts. 

And  for  a  final  reference:  this  mystic  note, 
this  appeal  to  a  test  that  is  not  of  the  workaday 
world,  sounds  through  the  words  of  the  weak  and 
erring  artist,  Dubedat,  when  he  comes  to  die:  the 
scene  in  "  The  Doctor's  Dilemma,"  where  this 
takes  place  being  almost  if  not  quite  the  most  re- 
markable single  scene  in  all  Shaw's  plays : 

"  I  know  that  in  an  accidental  sort  of  way, 
struggling  through  the  unreal  part  of  life,  I 
haven't  always  been  able  to  live  up  to  my  ideal. 
But  in  my  own  real  world  I  have  never  done  any- 
thing wrong,  never  denied  my  faith,  never  been 
untrue  to  myself.  I've  been  threatened  and 
blackmailed  and  insulted  and  starved.  But,  I've 
played  the  game.  I've  fought  the  good  fight. 
And  now  it's  all  over  there's  an  indescribable 
peace.  I  believe  in  Michael  Angelo,  Velasquez, 
and  Rembrandt;  in  the  might  of  design,  the  mys- 
tery of  color,  the  redemption  of  all  things  by 
Beauty  everlasting,  and  the  message  of  art  that 
has  made  these  hands  blessed.     Amen.  Amen." 

I  should  suppose  that  no  member  of  the  great 
confederated  band  of  artists  could  find  it  easy  to 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  233 

get  through  this  scene  dry-ej^ed.  And  it  is  of  a 
piece  with  the  other  passages  collated  for  the 
purpose  of  producing  a  clear,  culminative  effect 
upon  the  reader;  the  effect  of  seeing  a  side  of 
Shaw  easily  overlooked  perhaps,  but  of  cardinal 
importance  in  our  view  of  him.  With  regard  to 
space  occupied,  this  phase  may  seem  minor,  it 
may  be  granted:  but  with  regard  to  his  true 
orientation,  I  consider  it  to  be  central  and  il- 
luminating to  the  extreme  circumference  of  his 
thought. 

There  is  one  rather  obvious  defect  in  this  con- 
ception of  the  working  of  human  psychology. 
It  assumes  too  much  of  poor  average  human  na- 
ture. It  would  work  better  if  all  society  were 
made  up  of  members  so  far  along  the  path  of 
evolution  in  self-restraint,  noble  desire,  and  nor- 
mal reaction  to  the  right  stimuli  as  is  the  pro- 
pounder  of  the  philosophy,  Bernard  Shaw.  It  is, 
in  other  words,  a  counsel  of  perfection  which  is 
for  overmen  rather  than  for  the  usual  mundane 
middle-class  English  folk  who,  after  all,  are  the 
people  to  put  it  into  practice,  if  it  is  to  be  more 
than  a  paper  theory.  As  a  way  to  attain  Over- 
man, it  is  not  valid  because  it  assumes  Overman 


234  BERNARD  SHAW 

at  the  start.  Shaw  and  those  like  him  may  be 
safe  to  let  themselves  go,  to  connect  themselves 
with  the  life-force,  to  let  themselves  be  carried 
on  and  up  by  a  sort  of  Dionysiac  frenzy,  a  noble 
Berserker  rage.  The  trouble  in  following  one's 
subliminal  self,  so  the  average  person  might  plain- 
tively retort  (that  is,  one's  impulses  and  emotional 
dictations),  is  that  they  are  quite  likely  to  land 
one  in  jail. 

Yet  Shaw  can  neatly  turn  upon  his  objectors 
and  remark  that  while  it  is  true  enough  the 
average  man  will  not  respond  in  the  most  satis- 
factory manner  when  he  is  asked  to  be  himself  in 
the  self-willed  way,  the  need  to  ask  him  to  try  it 
is  illustrated  by  his  very  lack  of  its  proper  use. 
We  must  make  a  beginning,  and  let  the  principle 
be  illustrated  by  the  few  natural  leaders  in  order 
that  gradually,  O,  very  gradually,  men  in  gen- 
eral may  be  taught  to  act  with  free,  strong  voli- 
tion and  be  their  best  selves,  not  be  crushed  by 
the  hold-backs  of  caution  and  the  timid  negations 
of  conventions ;  thus  exercising  that  trained  Will 
which  alone  can  breed  real  character  in  place  of 
the  duplication  of  flabby  invertebrates.  As  a 
principle,  then,  this  new  hitching  one's  wagon  to 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  2S5 

a  star  or  merging  in  the  mystic  life-force,  has  a 
great  deal  in  its  favor. 

That  it  is  a  genuinely  high  and  beautiful  con- 
ception of  life  and  of  duty  is  beyond  all  question. 
If  the  idea  were  a  piece  of  mistaken  idealism  on 
this  thinker's  part,  it  would  remain  a  creed  to 
respect  and  admire.  If  the  dream  could  never  be 
made  flesh,  it  would  still  be  a  dream  to  arouse 
the  imagination  and  awake  the  sympathies,  and 
comfort  the  heart.  I,  for  one,  am  not  inclined 
to  turn  cynic  as  to  its  legitimacy;  especially  as 
it  is  firm-based  upon  an  indisputable  truth  about 
Man:  that  his  emotions  furnish  the  dynamo  back 
of  all  his  most  typical  acts  and  deepest  reactions. 

Some  of  us,  therefore,  so  far  from  objecting 
to  this  Shaw  of  the  mystic  dream,  as  an  unex- 
pected and  at  first  perhaps  rather  disturbing 
deuteragonist  to  the  protagonist  of  the  Shaw 
who  talks  of  municipal  trading  and  of  eugenics, 
and  whose  deepest  concern  seems  to  be  an  equita- 
ble adjustment  of  the  rates,  welcome  the  poet 
dreamer  who  catches  a  vision  of  the  State  Beau- 
tiful, and  believes  in  his  soul  that  he  is  on  the 
side  of  the  angels,  although  he  no  longer  calls 
them    angels    but    Superfolk;    whose    heaven    is 


^36  BERNARD  SHAW 

earth  made  just,  and  clean  and  honest,  and 
lovely.  Respect  and  liking  go  out  naturally,  in- 
stinctively, to  a  thinker  with  this  faith,  and  with 
the  courage  of  his  convictions;  whose  work  and 
words  really  tally,  whose  life  might  be  called 
austerely  pure,  were  it  not  that  it  is  tempered 
with  a  smile,  now  kindly,  now  satiric,  and  human- 
ized by  a  Celtic  disposition  to  engage  in  a  fair 
fight :  a  fight  of  ringing  blows,  and  no  quarter ; 
a  fight  where,  the  affair  once  settled,  the  antago- 
nists, wiping  the  sweat  from  their  brows,  shake 
hands  and  mutually  admire  each  other's  good 
qualities.  It  is. noteworthy  in  all  Shaw's  battles 
that  he  seems  to.  hate  the  sin  rather  than  the 
sinner,  and  always  produces  the  effect  of .  a  .man 
ready  and  willing  to  resume  fraternal  relations, 
when  the  shindy  is  over.  But  while  the  encounter 
is  on,  beware!  No  man  can  hit  harder  or  more 
viciously,  no  man  is  less  likely  to  spare  his  op- 
ponent. I  fancy  that  all  good  argufiers  have 
said  in  their  hearts:  from  sueh  a  debater,  good 
Lord,  deliver  us! 

And  so  we r  begin  with  a  contentious  publicist 
and  end  with  a  literary  artist  and  poet:  which 
is  only,  afi^er  all,  walking  all  the  way  round  the 


THE  POET  AND  MYSTIC  237 

circumference  c^  a  complex  modern  personality. 
We  begin  by  thinking  of  him  as  a  fantastic  fel- 
low, and  end  with  an  impression  of  underlying 
good  sense;  agreeing  with  the  author's  own  esti- 
mate of  himself,  set  down  with  his  habitual 
frankness:  "It  is  the  sensible  schemes | unfortu- 
nately that  are  hopeless  in  England.  Therefore 
I  have  great  hopes  that  my  own  views,  though 
fundamentally  sensible,  can  be  made  to  appear 
fantastic  enough  to  have  a  chance."  What  of 
contradiction  and  paradox  may  be  there,  should 
not  obscure  for  us  the  main  fact  that  the  char- 
acter is  consistently  one:  rock-founded,  steadily 
orientated,  and  impressive  in  itself  and  because 
it  represents  so  much  of  our  Time,  which  in  it- 
self in  its  turn  is  also  complex,  paradoxical,  and 
baffling;  yet,  again  like  Shaw,  intensely  interest- 
ing for  those  very  reasons ! 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN 

Stripped  of  much  nonsense  which  has  come  to 
be  its  connotation  during  the  development  of 
critical  nomenclature,  the  word  technic,  after  all, 
means  a  very  simple  thing.  It  refers  to  the  most 
workmanlike  way  of  doing  that  which  in  litera- 
ture has  for  its  object  the  imparting  of  pleas- 
ure. In  the  fine  arts,  whose  aipi  it  is  to  please, 
technic  is  that  manner  of  performing  the  task 
which  results  in  the  greatest  content  of  satisfac- 
tion in  the  recipient.  And  perhaps  it  is  not 
fundamental  but  arbitrary  to  confine  the  process 
to  non-utilitarian  labors.  It  may  be  that  the 
bootblack,  as  he  polishes  your  boots,  possesses 
technic  in  so  far  as  .he  takes  pleasure  in  and  gives 
you  pleasure  from  the  perfect  polish  he  lovingly 
bestows.  An  artistic  desire  issuing  in  a  beauti- 
ful result,  why  is  that  not  always  an  illustration 
of  true  technic,  albeit  the  thing  done  is  «practi- 
cal,    utilitarian,    not    associated    with    what    are 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    239 

called  the  arts?  The  utilitarian  nature  of  the 
work  should  not  blind  us  to  the  artistic  instinct 
which  is  involved. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  a  man  has  technic  when  he 
has  learned  to  conserve  his  artistic  interests  by 
doing  a  given  job  in  the  most  economical  way  for 
him  and  the  most  pleasurable  to  the  art  patron. 
Bernard  Shaw  has  written  some  thirty  dramas 
and  has  made  himself  famous  in  so  doing.  Many 
of  his  plays  are  solid  theatre  successes,  not 
merely  plays  that  appeal  to  the  select.  The  box 
office  has  been  so  often  his  friend  that  he  is  a 
moderately  rich  man  from  his  dramatic  work;  to 
be  respected,  therefore,  by  a  practical,  commer- 
cial Broadway  manager,  as  a  playwright  whose 
wares  have  market  value.  And  his  plays  in  gen- 
eral, whether  commercially  effective  or  not,  are 
taken  seriously  by  the  critics  and  enlightened 
public  followers  of  the  theatre  in  many  lands. 
He  has,  then,  been  successful  both  in  the  critical 
and  practical  sense  of  the  word. 

He  began  by  violently  disturbing  the  precon- 
ceived notions  of  what  a  play  is  and  how  it 
should  be  written.  Indeed,  he  may  be  described 
broadly   as    a   professional   overthrower   of   con- 


240  BERNARD  SHAW 

ventions ;  he  comes  not  to  bring  peace  but  a 
sword.  As  to  the  drama,  having  a  new  thing  to 
say,  he  invented  a  way  to  say  it  in  order  to  say 
it  effectively,  or  at  all.  At  first,  the  novelty  of 
the  new  thing,  in  manner  and  matter,  made  it 
unacceptable;  later,  it  became  an  element  in 
Shaw's  success.  The  critics  were  forced  to  do 
what  under  compulsion  they  have  alwaj^s  done, 
given  time  enough :  revise  the  assumed  "  laws," 
in  order  to  account  for  the  strange  new  phe- 
nomenon. Whether  they  liked  it  or  not,  here  was 
something  which  compelled  attention,  would  draw 
interest  to  itself:  and  seemed  to  reach  the  desired 
result  by  an  illegitimate  bypath  from  the  beaten 
highroad.  The  history  of  criticism  is  ironically 
amusing  because  it  is  the  exposure  of  this  critical 
discomfiture  in  the  face  of  the  pioneers  who  have 
made  the  history  of  the  arts.  We  see  it  il- 
lustrated with  Wordsworth  over  a  century  ago 
in  England;  with  Whitman  in  America,  half  a 
century  since;  with  Wagner  in  Germany  at 
about  the  same  time.  Truly  original  creative 
persons  have  a  way  of  seeming  to  upset  stand- 
ards; in  the  end,  it  is  perceived  that  they  are 
only  enlarging  boundaries,  and  so  advancing  the 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    241 

interests  of  art.  And  the  professional  critics, 
prone  to  conservatism,  suspicious  of  any  depar- 
ture from  the  usual,  follow  these  leaders  cau- 
tiously from  afar,  grumbling  and  very  loth;  only 
at  last  to  turn  on  the  poor  guessing  public  with 
a  superbly  inconsistent,  "  I  told  you  so."  Two 
views  are  still  tenable  with  regard  to  Shaw  as 
an  artist  of  the  theatre.  One  may  say  that  his 
plays  are  bad  technically,  but  that  the  intellectual 
stimulus  he  offers  is  so  great,  and  his  topics  so 
vital,  and  his  gift  of  word  and  for  character  so 
decided,  that  these  dramas  appeal  in  spite  of  poor 
construction,  inadequate  dramatic  motivation  and 
handling.  One  who  inclines  to  this  view  is  likely 
to  refer  glibly  to  the  "  talk  drama  "  of  Shaw  (as 
if  all  drama  that  is  drama  in  the  full  sense  were 
not  talk  drama),  and  to  speak  of  his  plays  as 
"  dramatised  conversation." 

The  other  view,  maintained  by  the  present  critic, 
sees  in  the  Shaw  plays  a  skilful  adaptation  of 
means  to  end.  A  typical  Shavian  play  is  a  story 
framework  around  an  idea  which  the  playwright 
wishes  to  enforce ;  and  having  the  technical  prob- 
lem of  telling  the  story  within  stage  limitations 
so  as  to  make  it  interesting,  more  interesting  than 


242  BERNARD  SHAW 

it  would  be  in  the  form  of  narrated  fiction,  for 
example,  while  bringing  out  the  idea  inherent  in 
the  treatment.  Given  this  object,  which,  be  it 
noted,  is  not  always  the  object  of  a  play,  which 
may  contain  no  idea  at  all,  nor  have  a  desire  to 
bring  home  such  an  idea, — it  is  accomplished  with 
the  sure  hand  which  can  only  be  attained  by  sound 
workmanship.  Technic  has  no  meaning  save  as 
it  is  related  to  a  given  form  and  purpose.  Shaw's 
drama — let  me  say  it  again — is  the  drama  of 
I  idea:  intellectual  drama,  drama  that  is  psycho- 
logic in  that  its  aim  is  to  reveal  character  in  the 

l-  cause  of  an  idea,  and  therefore  doctrinaire,  in 
that  through  dialogue,  scene,  and  action  it  desires 
to  maintain,  set  forth,  and  bring  home  a  theory. 
Over  and   above   this,  to  be   good  drama,   there 

\^  must  be  entertainment  in  the  way  of  a  story,  with 
attractions  along  the  way  in  wit,  humor,  charac- 
terization, and  the  heightened  moments  called  sit- 
uations. These  are  to  be  found  in  Shaw.  But, 
evidently,  in  such  drama,  story  becornes  secondary, 
character  is  important,  and  it  is  the  underlying 
idea  which  unifies  all. 

If  this  purpose  and  its  legitimacy  be  accepted, 
the  careful   student  of  Shaw  cannot  escape  the 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    243 

conclusion  that  he  is  an  able  craftsman,  conscious 
of  his  material,  knowing  how  to  handle  his  tools, 
and  achieving  results  that  are  not  accidental.  His 
dramas  are  by  no  means  on  a  par  of  merit  (as  he 
would  be  the  first  to  say),  either  for  interest,  im- 
portance of  theme,  or  dramaturgic  skill;  he  him- 
self calls  "  Fanny's  First  Play  "  a  "  potboiler," 
and  "  Great  Catherine "  "  tomfoolery."  No 
writer  sees  himself  with  clearer  eyes.  His  product 
is  unequal,  exactly  as  is  that  of  all  able  artists, 
beginning  with  Homer.  He  falls  below  his  best 
at  times,  since  the  definition  of  "  best  "  demands 
and  implies  it.  But  prevailingly,  and  markedly 
in  eight  or  ten  pieces,  the  skilled  shaping  of  the 
material  in  order  to  get  the  essentials  out  of  the 
subject-matter  and  impart  the  satisfaction  ger- 
mane to  the  theatre  is  too  definitely  exhibited  to 
give  the  theory  that  Shaw's  method  of  dramatic 
writing  is  a  haphazard  dash  at  an  arthe  does  not 
command,  a  leg  to  stand  on^^'WWls  no  for- 
tuitous success.  As  Dr.  HeSHKon'^uts  it,  "  he 
violates  all  the  rules,  yet  turns  the  trick";  and 
the  violation,  be  it  added,  is  only  seeing.  Let 
us  put  it  in  this  way:  he  violates  existing  con- 
ventions and  makes  some  new  rules,  since  a  rule  is 


244  BERNARD  SHAW 

but  the  formulation  of  a  successful  way  of  accom- 
plishing a  writer's  purpose.  It  might  further  be 
argued  that  in  those  cases  where  the  technic  of  a 
play  seems  most  careless  or  furthest  removed  from 
the  proper  method,  it  is  to  be  explained  not  as 
ignorance  or  carelessness,  but  from  the  nature  of 
the  piece,  the  author  possibly  caring  more  about 
making  his  thesis  plain  than  he  does  to  give  his 
play  acting  value.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  and 
may  be  said  again  that  by  deliberate  choice  Shaw 
elects  to  write  the  drama  in  which  thesis  is  promi- 
nent, not  to  say  dominant.  He  has  declared  that 
there  is  "  no  future  now  for  any  drama  without 
music  except  the  drama  of  thought,"  and  stated 
his  own  "  determination  to  accept  problem  as  the 
normal  material  of  the  drama." 

It  can  readily  be  admitted  that  there  are  some 
plays  of  Shaw  more  dramatic  than  others,  or  plays 
more  unsuited  to  the  stage  than  others :  "  Can- 
dida," for-^(fchple,  being  first-class  stage  mate- 
rial, where  ♦Getting  Married  "  is  far  behind  it 
in  this  respect.  Yet  why  assume  that  the  latter 
is  an  instance  of  malexpertness,  while  the  former 
accidentally  happens  to  be  good?  It  would  appear  * 
more  rational  to  believe  that  the  playwright,  hav- 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    245 

ing  demonstrated,  as  he  so  often  does,  his  ability 
to  make  drama  of  acting  quality,  deliberately 
chose  in  other  cases  to  forfeit  a  certain  amount 
of  stage  eifectivism,  for  the  sake  of  dealing  with 
his  subject  in  a  way  best  to  convey  his  ideas.  In  V 
fact,  it  is  part  of  Shaw's  originality  that  he  has 
dared  to  introduce  unstagy  matter  into  the  thea- 
tre and  given  it  sufficient  theatric  appeal  to  keep 
it  there  long  enough  to  carry  a  message  to  folk 
ready  to  receive  it.  It  is  perfectly  safe  to  say 
that  the  author  himself  never  imagined  the  acting 
value  of  "  Getting  Married "  to  equal  that  of 
"  Candida  "  or  "  Mrs.  Warren's  Profession."  But 
he  wished  to  put  a  thorough  discussion  of  mar- 
riage upon  the  boards ;  and  gave  it  enough  of  viva- 
cious life  and  novel  interest  to  make  it  amusing 
to  a  general  audience.  He  threw  it  into  one-act 
form  because  he  knew  he  did  not  have  a  story  of 
sufficient  constructional  value  to  justify  the  usual 
form;  a  fact  in  itself  illustrating  his  freedom 
and  skill  in  stage  architecture.  And  his  subject 
being,  as  it  was,  intensely  contemporary  and  his 
characterization  and  dialogue  as  usual  brilliant, 
he  was  able  to  overcome,  to  a  great  extent  at 
least,  the  natural  objection  brought  against  this 


246  BERNARD  SHAW 

drama  that  it  was  "  nothing  but  talk."  The 
point  to  be  made  here  is,  that  Bernard  Shaw  in 
his  play-making  is  not  to  be  placed  with  Mr. 
Granville  Barker  in  his  "  Madras  House "  or 
Tchekov  in  his  "  Cherry  Orchard,"  where  the  re- 
sult is  not  a  play  at  all;  by  a  play  I  mean  a 
stage  story  coherently  and  progressively  aiming 
at  a  climax,  the  natural  and  inevitable  target  of 
all  good  drama.  And  the  talk  in  favor  of  this 
amorphous  play-making  which  neglects  plot  and 
organic  development  for  the  sake  of  other  and 
better  things,  is  effectually  blocked  by  replying 
that  you  can  get  all  those  other  estimable  things 
more  surely  if  you  obey  the  laws  of  sound 
V^  dramaturgy  at  the  same  time.  Delight  is  a  great 
digester  of  "  truth  to  life,"  and  to  be  dull  and 
dreary  is  to  be  "  real "  in  no  desirable  sense. 
And  Shaw,  much  misunderstanding  to  the  con- 
trary, does  not  forget  this  fundamental  demand 
of  the  stage  in  his  work.  His  drama  may  be  un- 
usual in  form  but  it  is  not  formless. 

But  the  mistake  about  Shaw's  technic  goes 
deeper.  In  the  piece  mentioned  and  in  others,  the 
assumption  that  there  is  a  story  and  no  growth 
or  organic  approach  to  a  climax  is  quite  aside 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    247 

from  the  truth.  The  story  is  there,  but  the  tell- 
ing of  it  varies  according  to  the  sort  of  story  it  is, 
and  his  purpose  in  treating  it.  And  it  is  signifi- 
cant and  most  helpful  in  understanding  Shaw's 
method,  to  see  that  the  story  looked  at  by  itself 
is  not  seldom  far-fetched,  farcical,  improbable, 
whereas  the  psychology  of  the  characters  is  seri- 
ously treated,  and  beneath  the  fantastic  frame- 
work of  plot  lurks  an  equally  serious  social 
commentary.  The  dramatist  seems  to  give  his 
seriousness  the  relief  of  this  external  foolery,  thus 
catching  the  attention  of  the  light-minded,  who 
otherwise  would  go  about  their  business  and  never 
heed  him  at  all.  And  it  is  the  confusion  begotten 
by  these  two  things,  I  believe,  fable  and  message, 
that  land  those  simple  souls  in  trouble  who  seek 
hastily  and  half-heartedly  to  understand  this 
writer  of  stage  plays  who  happens  also  to  be 
the  sober  writer  of  essays  on  political  economy. 
Nothing  could  be  wilder  in  extravaganza  than  the 
fable  play,  "  Androcles  and  the  Lion,"  as  we  have 
noted.  Yet,  witnessing  it,  when  one  is  already 
famihar  with  this  dramatist,  one  is  inclined  to 
refrain  from  the  guffaw  aroused  by  the  trick  lion, 
because  of  the  constant  underlying  suggestions  re- 


248  BERNARD  SHAW 

garding religion,  specific  and  narrow,  and  uniA^ersal 
and  fundamental.  The  beast  epic  in  relation  to 
man,  the  law  of  kindness  towards  our  elder  and 
humbler  brothers,  these  are  so  much  in  the 
thoughtful  spectator's  mind,  that  as  the  animal 
walks  off  the  stage  with  Androcles,  and  the  un- 
thinking have  their  laugh,  the  meditative  minor- 
ity to  be  found  even  in  an  American  theatre  may 
find  itself  not  far  from  the  civilized  tear.  To  hu- 
manize frigid  historical  material  is  in  itself  an 
achievement  the  value  of  which  remains  after  the 
laughter  dies. 

The  statement  hereinbefore  made  that  the  tell- 
ing of  the  story  varies  with  the  manner  of  story 
it  is,  technic  being  thus  plastic  to  the  shifting 
demand,  has  been  illustrated  in  my  treatment  of 
"  The  Devil's  Disciple,"  as  well  as  in  other  in- 
stances. 

The  point  is,  that  the  intention  to  halt  what  is 
called  "  action "  on  the  stage  for  the  sake  of 
discussion,  and  thus  to  violate  dramatic  conven- 
tions, is  a  very  different  thing  from  ignorantly 
writing  undramatic  scenes.  We  may  properly 
enough  debate  whether  Bernard  Shaw  be  not  un- 
dramatic in  certain  plays  or  parts  of  plays;  it 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    249 

all  depends  upon  what  you  mean  by  undramatic. 
But  it  is  absurd  to  claim  that  he  is  missing  fire 
like  an  amateur.  Right  or  wrong  as  to  the  re- 
sults, he  knows  the  rules  of  the  game,  consciously 
alters  or  ignores  them,  chooses  to  do  what  he 
does,  and  takes  the  risks.  This,  it  will  be  con- 
ceded, is  quite  other  than  to  blunder  along,  and 
sometimes  hit  upon  success.  For  in  spite  of  the 
risks  run  and  the  unstagy  things  done,  success 
frequently  follows ;  too  frequently  to  be  an  acci- 
dent. 

We  shall  never  get  down  to  the  root  of  the 
matter  until  the  fundamental  question  is  faced: 
What  is  "  action  "  on  the  stage  ?  Persons  a-plenty 
patronizingly  drop  a  kind  word  for  Shaw,  because 
of  his  general  cleverness,  but  sapiently  add :  "  Of 
course,  he  has  no  action,  you  know ;  but  he's  great 
fun,  isn't  he?  "  a  remark  somewhat  hard  to  bear. 
"  Action  "  to  the  Philistine  means  physical  bus- 
tle, and  nothing  else;  unless  two  or  more  persons 
demonstrate  emotional  arousement  by  jumping 
about  a  stage,  the  drama  is  at  once  dubbed  dull. 
And  the  play  becomes  proportionately  more 
"  dramatic "  as  more  persons  are  added,  until 
the  effect  is  that  of  a  mob  that  shouts  and  surges 


250  BERNARD  SHAW 

and  perhaps  tears  down  a  house,  to  the  sound 
of  guns.  But  unfortunately  for  this  primitive 
view,  a  Norwegian  by  the  name  of  Ibsen  has  taught 
the  theatre-going  world  that  action  may  be  a 
state  within  as  well  as  a  row  without ;  that  two 
persons,  Nora  and  Helmer,  her  husband,  let  us 
say,  standing  quietly  together  and  talking  in 
ordinary,  every-day  tones,  may  give  us  a  sense 
of  stressed  emotional  values  in  human  life  such 
as  no  frenzied  mob  at  its  highest  howl  can  secure. 
Action,  we  now  know  pretty  well,  since  it  is  fully 
illustrated  by  modern  drama  and  gives  that 
drama  its  chief  significance,  is  anything  on  the 
stage  that  makes  us  to  enter  sympathetically  into 
the  psychologic  tension  of  the  stage  folk  whose 
fortunes  engage  us.  And  it  is  more  and  more 
the  habit  of  current  play-making  of  the  better 
sort  to  show  this  "  action "  with  the  quiet  re- 
straint which  throws  emphasis  upon  states  of 
mind  and  emotional  crises,  with  a  laudable  desire 
not  to  overstep  their  modesty  of  nature.  Mod- 
ern stage  action,  in  a  word,  tends  to  become 
psychologic,  rather  than  physical  and  acrobatic. 
Shaw,  then,  is  full  of  action,  if  only  there  be 
conceded  to  that  much-abused  word  a  connotation 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN     251 

which  implies  something  besides  door  slamming 
and  dextrous  gyrations  of  the  body.  There  is  no 
true  antithesis  between  talk  and  action;  for  the 
right  kind  of  talk  on  the  stage  is  the  most  tre- 
mendous action  in  the  w^orld  to  posit  crisis,  show 
character,  and  create  climax. 
I  "  Situation "  is  another  favorite  word  with 
those  who  fall  into  the  conventional  chatter  about 
the  drama ;  without  situation,  no  self-respecting 
play  is  supposed  to  survive  the  arrows  of  out- 
raged criticism.  What  is  meant  obviously  by 
such  a  demand  is  that  a  play  to  be  a  play  must 
at  certain  points  commonly  associated  in  modern 
dramaturgy  with  the  fall  of  a  curtain  give  an 
effect  of  increased  tension,  of  arrived  crisis;  that 
sharpening  of  story  which  is  in  its  staccato  quality 
peculiar  to  the  stage  in  contrast  with  other  forms 
of  narrative. 

It  is  equally  foolish  to  deny  that  in  this  re- 
spect Shaw's  plays  are  richly  supplied  with  sit- 
uations. One  such,  most  original  and  effective, 
is  the  scene  in  the  third  act  of  "  The  Devil's  Dis- 
ciple," where  Dudgeon  and  the  minister's  wife 
discuss  his  deed  in  saving  her  husband's  life,  and 
to  her  bewildered  astonishment  he  disclaims  any 


252  BERNARD  SHAW 

love  for  her.  And  in  the  same  play  another  of 
first-class  quality  is  the  final  trial  scene.  There 
are  few  finer  situations  on  the  English  stage  than 
that  in  "  Candida,"  where  the  drame  a  trois  cul- 
minates in  the  wife's  choice  between  lover  and 
husband;  and  greater  still,  as  we  saw,  because  of 
the  nature  of  the  scene,  is  that  terrible  confronta- 
tion in  "  Mrs.  Warren's  Profession  "  of  mother 
by  daughter,  with  its  tragic  issue  for  the  former. 
Again,  it  is  a  situation  of  high  value  when,  at  the 
end  of  "  Captain  Brassbound's  Conversion,"  the 
pseudo-pirate  pleads  for  Lady  Cicely's  love;  to 
which  we  may  add  the  final  curtain  of  "  Man  and 
Superman,"  the  second  act  curtain  of  "  Arms  and 
the  Man,"  and  the  central  and  only  scene  of 
"The  Showing-up  of  Blanco  Posnet."  The 
death  of  the  artist  in  act  third  of  "  The  Doctor's 
Dilemma  "  is  one  of  the  most  daringly  novel  and 
theatrically  effective  scenes  in  the  range  of  mod- 
ern drama.  The  stage  value  of  these  and  such 
others  as  every  Shaw  student  will  easily  add,  is 
so  apparent  as  to  make  all  the  more  strange  the 
reiteration  of  the  stupid  statement  that  Shaw 
lacks  action  and  instinct  for  stage  effects.  On 
the  contrary,  he  has  the  instinct  carefully  forti- 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    253 

fied  and  fructified  by  much  thought  and  labor  both 
as  critic  and  playwright,  so  that  the  trained 
hand  and  the  cool  craftsman's  head  cooperate 
and  result  in  the  grasp  of  dramatic  material 
which  means  a  capable  theatre  artist.  In  his  best 
plays,  growth,  clash,  and  crisis,  ever  denotements 
of  real  drama,  instead  of  the  purely  literary  per- 
formances of  would-be  dramatists,  are  present; 
if  we  will  but  get  rid  of  a  too  narrow  understand- 
ing of  dramatic  requirements. 

The  probable  reason  so  many  fail  to  see  this 
capability  in  Shaw's  technic,  the  power  to  ar- 
range story  in  appealing  crescendo  moments  of  in- 
cident and  character,  so  that,  chemically  united, 
what  is  called  climax  is  the  result,  is  because  this 
playwright  subordinates  situation  to  his  deeper 
purposes  of  theme  and  characterization;  subor- 
dinates, let  me  repeat,  but  not  eliminates.  He  is, 
so  to  say,  chary  of  it,  only  furnishing  these  popu- 
lar effects  as  they  may  be  necessary  to  make  a 
play  which  shall  engage  the  attention  of  a  gen- 
eral audience  to  his  subject  in  hand.  Thus  he 
differs  by  the  whole  sky  from  dramatists  like 
Scribe  or  Bernstein,  to  whom  such  effects  are  the 
principal  aim,  not  an  incident  in  a  larger  pur- 


254  BERNARD  SHAW 

pose.  Like  Ibsen  before  him,  he  rather  shuns  too 
obvious  "  curtains,"  and  prefers  the  illusion  pro- 
duced by  giving  the  broken  rhythm  of  life  instead 
of  the  too  perfect  symmetry  of  self-conscious 
theatre  art. 

And  it  is  interesting  to  realize  that  all  the 
more  credit  goes  to  Shaw,  the  technician,  for  so 
often  producing  situations  in  the  common  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  in  that  he  boldly  and  contemptu- 
ously tramples  on  all  the  most  sacred  principles 
of  psychology  involved  traditionally  in  those  sit- 
uations. Thus,  in  the  climax  of  "  The  Devil's 
Disciple,"  Dudgeon,  who,  by  immemorial  stage 
law,  should  love  the  minister's  fair  spouse,  and 
so  explain  his  gallant  conduct,  coolly  repudiates 
any  such  motive.  And  yet,  this  is  as  arresting 
as  if  he  had  obeyed  the  rules  of  the  French  tri- 
angle (of  which  the  play  makes  fun),  and  drawn 
the  unresisting  lady  to  his  breast.  In  the  same 
fashion,  Candida's  choice  is  all  the  fresher  and 
more  sensational,  in  other  words,  of  more  stage 
value,  because  she  chooses  her  husband  in  place 
of  her  lover ;  too  original,  in  truth,  for  the  boule- 
vards. Shaw  abandons  all  the  tricks  and  char- 
acter turns  which  were  believed  to  be  invincible 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    255 

on  the  boards  of  a  theatre,  and  makes  the  sup- 
posedly tame  reverse  still  more  exciting.  It  is 
hard  not  to  admire  such  fortesse  of  handling. 

As  a  summary,  one  may  say  that  Shaw  has  the 
genuine  playwright's  feeling  for  that  one  central 
scene  around  which  the  whole  dramatic  structure 
is  built,  towards  which  it  naturally  moves  and 
from  which  it  recedes  when  the  main  purpose  is 
accomplished ;  the  obligatory  scene,  as  Mr.  Archer 
paraphrases  the  French  term,  which  every  true 
theatre  artist  knows  he  must  give  his  audience  to 
satisfy  it,  can  generally  be  found  in  the  represen- 
tative dramas  of  this  writer ;  and  if  absent,  a  rea- 
son is  not  lacking.  Nothing  insures  the  undra- 
matic  quality  of  an  alleged  play  more  certainly 
than  to  substitute  indirect  narration  for  the  direct 
showing  of  a  thing  important  in  the  treatment. 
On  the  stage,  seeing  is  believing,  and  to  exhibit 
action  instead  of  talking  about  it,  is  a  funda- 
mental principle  of  both  experience  and  com- 
mon sense.  At  first  blush,  it  might  appear  that 
Shaw  is  an  arch-sinner  in  this  respect ;  but  such  is 
not  the  case.  In  the  first  acts  of  "  The  Devil's 
Disciple  "  and  "  The  Doctor's  Dilemma,"  studied 
earlier,  there  is  a  deal  of  talk,  we  saw,  preliminary 


256  BERNARD  SHAW 

to  the  start  of  the  story ;  dialogue  for  the  sake  of 
"  planting  "  character,  to  use  the  technical  term, 
and  to  create  atmosphere.  But  with  the  story 
under  way,  Shaw  does  not  make  the  mistake  ad- 
verted to  above.  Regularly,  he  lets  the  interaction 
of  characters  develop  the  plot;  irregularly,  he 
uses  indirect  statement  in  place  of  direct  presenta- 
tion; but  this  when  something  is  to  be  gained  in 
so  doing.  "  Captain  Brassbound's  Conversion  " 
is  a  good  play  to  study  with  this  in  mind.  The 
off-stage  occurrences  in  this  drama,  such  as  the 
presence  of  the  United  States  ship  in  the  harbor, 
are  pregnant  with  consequences  to  the  action, 
yet  are  twice  as  telling  as  if  seen  by  the  spectator. 
Throughout  his  dramas,  Shaw  exhibits  a  nice  and 
well-nigh  infallible  appreciation  of  the  differ- 
ence between  expositional  and  suggestive  off-stage 
material  and  that  sort  of  narrative  which  means 
fiction  instead  of  a  play.  There  is  no  subtler  test 
of  technic  than  this. 

Closely  allied  with  this  mistake  about  Shaw's 
power  in  situation  is  that  which  denies  him  emo- 
tional quality.  One  smiles  instinctively  at  this 
allegation,  since  emotionalism  is  so  marked  a  trait 
of  this  writer  as  almost  to  deserve  first  mention. 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    257 

To  be  sure,  he  seems  to  be  an  intellect  attacking 
the  false  and  foolish  emotions  of  others ;  but  no 
one  becomes  more  emotionally  aroused  or  imparts 
more  of  the  heat  and  light  of  such  a  state  than 
this  same  writer.  He  is,  above  all,  an  incorrigible 
romanticist,  shy  of  himself.  What  is  really 
meant  when,  masking  as  a  cold  intellectualist,  he 
is  charged  with  a  lack  of  heart  and  its  corollary, 
too  much  head,  is  not  that  the  emotion  is  absent 
but  that  it  is  of  the  wrong  kind  or  out  of  place. 
There  is,  for  example,  immense  emotional  content 
and  effect  in  the  central  scene  referred  to  in  "  Mrs. 
Warren's  Profession."  It  fairly  quivers  with  feel- 
ing, white-hot  and  poignant.  But  the  trouble  is 
that  this  exhibition  of  mother  and  daughter  at 
grapple  is  a  destructive  attack  upon  the  usual 
sentimental  depiction  of  this  relation  and  this 
seems  to  confirmed  sentimentalists  cold  and  ab- 
horrent. In  this  sense,  but  in  this  sense  only,  the 
scene  might  be  called  unsympathetic  and  Vivie 
herself  an  intellectualized  repellent  character. 
In  other  words,  we  must  carefully  explain  what 
emotion  implies  before  deciding  whether  our 
dramatist  commands  it.  If  the  term  be  used 
broadly  enough  to  include  aroused  feeling  with 


258  BERNARD  SHAW 

regard  to  vital  human  activities  and  relations, 
then  no  writer  for  the  stage,  past  or  present,  ex- 
cels Shaw  in  the  power  of  emotional  evocation. 
I  spoke  of  the  emotion  being  out  of  place,  at 
times.  In  a  scene  already  referred  to  as  perhaps 
the  most  remarkable  he  ever  conceived,  that  of 
the  death  of  the  artist  in  "The  Doctor's  Di- 
lemma," we  get  a  good  illustration.  The  words 
of  Dubedat,  as  he  bids  good-bye  to  his  wife  and 
recites  his  wonderful  credo,  are  a-pulse  with  pro- 
found feeling  which  calls  forth  a  like  feeling  in 
the  hearer.  One  recognizes  that  the  dramatist  is 
stirred  to  his  depths.  Yet  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  this  scene,  magnificent  as  it  is  for  imagi- 
native suggestion,  rich  in  emotional  content,  will 
ever  be  accepted  as  successful  by  a  theatreful 
of  folk,  for  reasons  I  have  explained. 

One  is  here  reminded  of  Tolstoy's  rebuke  of 
Shaw,  when  the  latter  made  a  joking  reference  to 
a  matter  the  Russian  held  sacred:  it  would  per- 
haps be  putting  it  fairly  to  say  that  Shaw  lacks 
taste  at  times,  both  as  an  artist  and  man,  in 
the  sense  that  he  does  not  enough  consider  what 
is  a  matter  of  reverence  to  others.  He  is  deeply 
reverential  about  that  which  he  reverences,  but  I 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    259 

think  can  be  justly  accused  of  riding  roughshod 
over  the  similar  feelings  of  others.  Remember,  I 
am  considering  the  emotional  quality  of  Shaw  at 
this  moment  simply  as  an  element  which  enters 
into  the  technical  result  and  removes  his  work 
from  that  dry  display  of  the  intellect  out  of 
place  in  a  playhouse.  Technic  must  have  emo- 
tional material  to  use  as  a  very  condition  of  its 
existence. 

Broadly  speaking,  no  doubt  Shaw,  like  Ibsen, 
uses  the  realistic  method  to  tell  his  story  and 
convey  his  theme.  The  folk  of  his  fancy  talk  and 
act  in  the  quiet  key  of  external  truth,  whatever 
may  be  said  of  the  purport  of  what  they  utter, 
or  of  the  uniqueness  of  their  psychology.  Super- 
ficially viewed,  they  are  of  all  stage  people  the 
most  unromantic  in  the  way  they  aim  at  the  via 
media  of  daily  life.  Shaw  is  ever  striving  to  create 
the  illusion  of  reality.  Critics  would  perhaps 
agree  that  in  the  denotements  of  speech,  dress,  and 
carriage  he  secures  the  desired  effect  in  this  fash- 
ion ;  but  would  clash  when  it  comes  to  the  deeper 
truth  of  human  character.  To  some,  Shaw's  char- 
acters are  simply  projections  of  Shaw,  the  play- 
wright himself  talking  behind  a  disguise  more  or 


260  BERNARD  SHAW 

less  thin;  sometimes,  as  we  noted  in  the  case  of 
Tanner,  hardly  a  disguise  at  all.  In  the  final  at- 
tempt to  place  Shaw  in  contemporary  drama  as 
a  literary  force,  I  have  attended  to  the  question 
whether  this  dramatist  has  the  higher  creative 
power  in  characterization.  Here,  with  technic  in 
mind,  let  it  be  noted  that,  given  his  aim,  his  Active 
folk  are  skilfully  done  because  they  carry  the 
double  role  of  exponents  of  his  theory  yet  seem- 
ingly real  human  beings.  His  so-called  realism 
as  a  method  properly  applies  to  his  manipulation 
of  character  and  is  a  part  of  the  technical  use  of 
his  art.  His  dramatis  personce  appear  to  do 
things  so  odd,  bizarre,  or  outrageous  as  to  bring 
up  the  grave  question  of  psychologic  accuracy. 
Would  Candida,  we  ask,  turn  to  her  husband  when 
she  makes  her  choice?  Would  Ann  pursue  the 
man  of  her  selection  with  such  unrelenting,  all 
but  awful  oneness  of  purpose?  Would  the 
family  in  "  You  Never  Can  Tell "  receive 
the  long-lost  father  upon  his  return  in  so 
cold  and  critical  a  fashion?  And  would  typi- 
cal young  women  of  the  day  substitute  eugenical 
considerations  instead  of  the  conventional  emo- 
tional response  to  wooing?    If  we  reply,  No,  then 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    261 

we  must  deny  him  the  realism  which  is  reality, 
not  merely  photography  and  superficial  appear- 
ance. It  may  be  conceded  that  at  times  Shaw, 
looking  ahead  and  picturing  the  desirable  Future 
rather  than  the  faulty  Present,  uses  the  method 
of  allegory — as  does  Ibsen — and  by  so  much  de- 
parts from  the  technic  of  pure  realism.  We 
should  not  forget  his  whimsical  statement  that 
he  learned  from  Mozart  to  make  all  his  characters 
geniuses.  But  it  is,  I  believe,  undeniable  that  by 
the  most  skilful  painting  of  the  physical  sem- 
blances of  humanity  on  the  stage,  Shaw  secures 
for  his  puppets  a  credence,  during  the  actual 
presentation  of  his  play,  such  as  might  not  upon 
analysis  be  accorded  to  men  and  women  in  life. 
And  this  is  an  achievement  in  artistry. 

The  flexibility  and  experimental  nature  of 
Shaw's  technic  may  be  seen  among  other  illustra- 
tions in  his  handling  of  the  act  division.  He 
throws  his  theme  into- one,  three,  four,  or  five  acts, 
as  he  pleases,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  piece, 
its  demand  in  the  particulars  of  growth  and 
pause  and  heightened  effects.  The  texture  and 
intention  of  his  material  alike  come  into  tlie  de- 
cision.     "  Getting  Married,"   "  The    Showing-up 


262  BERNARD  SHAW 

of  Blanco  Posnet,"  "The  Man  of  Destiny," 
"  How  He  Lied  to  Her  Husband,"  "  Press  Cut- 
tings," and  "  The  Dark  Lady  of  the  Sonnets  " 
testify  how  often  he  has  preferred  the  form  that 
means  a  continuous  performance,  with  time  values 
varying  from  a  half -hour  to  two  hours,  to  the  con- 
ventional playing  time  of  a  full-length  drama. 
Several  of  his  best  plays  are  in  the  three-act 
form  now  favored  by  the  skilled  artisans  of  the 
stage.  But  "  The  Doctor's  Dilemma  "  is  in  five 
acts,  a  form  supposed  to  be  obsolete  (at  least  for 
realistic  drama),  and  so  are  "Caesar  and  Cleo- 
patra "  and  "  Pygmalion  " ;  while  into  four  acts 
he  has  thrown  several  dramas,  including  "  Man 
and  Superman,"  "  You  Never  Can  Tell,"  and 
"  Captain  Brassbound's  Conversion."  Further 
examples  of  free  handling  may  be  noted  in 
"  Fanny's  First  Play,"  with  its  induction  and 
epilogue,  and  in  "  Androcles  and  the  Lion," 
where  the  material  suggests  chronicle  history  and 
the  form  becomes  correspondingly  plastic.  This 
adaptation  of  form  to  substance  indicates  the 
genuine  dramatist  who  creates  a  formula  but 
does  not  allow  it  to  bulldoze  him  into  the  slavish 
following  of  a  model. 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN  ^63 

Shaw  is  a  pioneer  in  the  one-act  play,  which 
is  an  interesting  and  significant  development  of 
modern  drama,  widening  its  possibilities,  and  af- 
fording some  of  the  ablest  playwrights  of  the  day, 
— Barrie,  Kennedy,  Middleton,  Sudermann,  Zang- 
will,  Strindberg, — the  list  might  be  made  formida- 
ble,— to  produce  effects  not  so  well  secured  in  the 
full-length  play.  The  one-acter  is  now  slowly 
but,  I  imagine,  surely  gaining  recognition  in  Eng- 
land and  America,  and  has  been  for  a  longer  time 
influential  in  Europe ;  as  where  Strindberg,  a  mas- 
ter in  this  genre,  presented  in  his  own  theatre 
in  Stockholm  many  of  the  best  examples  of  his 
own  work.  The  work  of  the  Irish  Players  in 
Dublin  and  on  tour,  and  in  America  such  com- 
panies as  that  once  at  The  Princess  and  The 
Washington  Square  Players  in  New  York,  to- 
gether with  the  various  Little  Theatres  of  the 
country,  have  done  much  to  bring  vogue  in  Eng- 
lish-speaking lands  to  this  form  of  drama.  Shaw's 
influence  in  popularizing  the  play,  long  or  short, 
without  act  division,  is  certainly  considerable. 
That  he  appreciates  the  opportunity  offered  by 
this  simplification  of  form  can  be  seen  in  his  note 
to  "  Getting  Married." 


264^  BERNARD  SHAW 

As  it  involves  this  morphological  question  be- 
yond its  application  to  the  drama  in  hand,  and 
throws  light  upon  the  dramatist's  view,  it  is 
worth  quoting  here :  "  There  is  a  point  of  some 
technical  interest  in  this  play.  The  customary 
division  into  acts  has  been  disused,  and  a  re- 
turn made  to  unity  of  time  and  space,  as  ob- 
served in  the  ancient  Greek  drama.  In  the  fore- 
going tragedy,  '  The  Doctor's  Dilemma,'  there 
are  five  acts:  the  place  is  altered  five  times  and 
the  time  is  spread  over  an  undetermined  period 
of  more  than  a  year.  No  doubt  the  strain  on  the 
attention  of  the  audience  and  on  the  ingenuity 
of  the  playwright  is  much  less;  but  I  find  in 
practice  that  the  Greek  form  is  inevitable  when 
drama  reaches  a  certain  point  in  poetic  and  in- 
tellectual evolution.  Its  adoption  was  not,  on 
my  part,  a  deliberate  display  of  virtuosity  in 
form,  but  simply  the  spontaneous  falling  of  a 
play  of  ideas  into  the  form  most  suitable  to  it, 
which  turned  out  to  be  the  classical  form.  '  Get- 
ting Married,'  in  several  acts,  with  the  time 
spread  over  a  long  period,  would  be  impossible." 

Here,  it  may  be  remarked,  is  the  self-conscious 
craftsman  meditating  upon  the  subtleties  of  his 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    265 

craft,  and  doing  nothing  by  accident.  The  defi- 
nite simplification  of  form  which  has  marked  the 
changing  drama  of  our  day  under  Ibsen's  influ- 
ence is  a  move  towards  the  closer  fitting  of  form 
to  substance :  given  the  emphasis  upon  psychology 
which  that  drama  chose  to  exercise,  and  fewer 
acts,  one  scene,  and  fewer  characters,  were  sure  to 
follow.  And  the  one-act  form  would  seem  to  be 
logically  the  carrying  out  of  this  principle  to  its 
natural  limit. 

Shaw  has  done  more  than  anyone  else  to  give 
literary  quality  to  that  part  of  a  play  which  is 
outside  the  dialogue :  the  stage  "  business  "  and 
the  descriptions  of  character.  Of  old,  this  was 
done  in  an  hieroglyphic  way,  a  species  of  linguistic 
arithmetic.  "  So-and-so  comes  down  right,  takes 
chair ;  business  of  using  handkerchief."  This  sort 
of  jargon  is  not  conducive  to  a  mood  which  would 
like  to  regard  a  drama  as  a  piece  of  literature,  a 
part  of  belles  lettres.  And  it  is  a  sad  blow  to  the 
illusion  of  story  and  picture.  It  is  likely  one  of 
the  reasons  why  the  reading  of  stage  plays,  when 
printed,  has  not  in  the  past  been  popular.  Such 
reading  is  now  rapidly  becoming  a  habit  because, 
among  other  reasons,  the  printed  drama  is  not 


266  BERNARD  SHAW 

offering  these  laconic  algebraic  sj^mbols  in  place 
of  the  written-out  speech  which  literature  de- 
mands. In  this  change,  Shaw  is  a  leader.  In- 
deed, nobody  has  done  so  much  to  improve  the 
situation.  As  a  literary  man,  with  a  bias  for  fit 
speech,  he  has  made  stage  directions  and  charac- 
ter delineations  "  literary,"  given  them  expres- 
sional  worth;  and  also  added  much  to  our  under- 
standing of  the  psychology  of  his  dramatic  chil- 
dren. But  in  his  zeal  to  remove  technical  and 
unpleasant  details  from  a  play  in  book  form,  he 
has  allowed  himself  to  fall  into  the  danger  of 
obtruding  his  own  personality  into  the  text,  so 
that  one  receives  the  shock  of  hearing  G.  B.  S. 
speak  in  the  first  person  just  as  one  was  coming 
under  the  illusion  of  the  scene  and  stor}^  Still, 
the  balance  of  gain  is  undoubtedly  in  favor  of  the 
reader;  and  the  writer's  influence  in  helping  thus 
to  rehabilitate  the  play  by  associating  it  with  the 
reading  habit  and  suggesting  that  it  may  be  a 
part  of  literature,  and  the  current  drama  thus  be- 
come a  recognized  part  of  the  great  body  of  drama 
of  past  times,  is  a  thing  to  be  unfeignedly  thank- 
ful for. 

But  are  they  not  reading  rather  than  acting 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    267 

plays,  after  all,  does  some  one  ask?  Shaw  first 
sought  his  audience  through  the  publication  of 
his  dramas,  which  could  find  no  producer;  did  he 
not  shape  his  work  for  such  appreciation,  and  fail 
to  fit  it  to  the  more  practical  tests  of  the  stage? 
To  this  inquiry  the  answer  is  obvious.  If  we  were 
obliged  in  honesty  to  say.  Yes,  Shaw's  technic 
would  instantly  be  involved.  This  dramatist 
would  fall  into  the  same  class  with  Shelley,  Ten- 
nyson, Swinburne,  and  Stevenson;  great  writers, 
but  not  strictly  playwrights  at  all. 

It  happens,  however,  that  the  contemporary 
world  is  finding  out,  with  more  or  less  naive  sur- 
prise, that  Shaw  meets  the  theatre  test  and  in 
fact  is  turning  out  to  be  one  of  the  best  acting 
dramatists  of  the  British  theatre.  He  has  nicely 
fooled  many  of  us  in  this  way.  Again  and  again, 
the  student  of  Shaw  will  have  read  some  drama  of 
his  before  seeing  it  played,  and  made  up  his  mind 
that  while  delightful  to  read,  it  was  not  suited  to 
stage  requirements ;  only  to  ascertain  that  it  was 
one  of  the  best  acting  plays  of  the  day.  I  con- 
fess to  being  misled  by  "  You  Never  Can  Tell," 
a  reading  of  which  did  not  by  any  means  reveal 
the  saliency  of  character  and  scene  which  makes 


268  BERNARD  SHAW 

this  farce  comedy  such  an  unchallenged  success. 
No  doubt  others,  if  put  into  the  confessional, 
could  bear  similar  testimony. 

But  does  the  fact  that  Shaw's  dramas  have  a 
thesis  injure  them  as  vehicles  for  the  stage,  where 
technic  in  art  and  entertainment  in  aim  unite  to 
make  good  dramaturgy?  We  have  already  made 
the  point  that  there  is  story  so  well  as  thesis 
in  these  productions ;  more  in  "  Fanny's  First 
Play,"  certainly,  and  less  in  "  Getting  Married," 
according  to  the  purpose  or  mood  of  the  play- 
wright; nobody  would  find  as  much  seriousness  of 
intention  in  "  How  He  Lied  to  Her  Husband  " 
and  "  Great  Catherine  "  as  in  "  Mrs.  Warren's 
Profession  "  and  "  Candida."  But  predominantly, 
the  didactics  are  mitigated  by  the  genuine  dra- 
matic qualities  of  entertainment ;  and,  the  proof  V^ 
of  the  pudding  being  in  the  eating,  behold  the  box 
office  result !  Nothing  is  surer  than  the  statement 
that  if  Shaw  were  more  preacher  than  dramatist, 
his  plays  would  steadily  fail.  To  be  sure,  he  ad- 
dresses a  special  and  happily  fast-growing  audi- 
ence; an  audience  which  would  desire  civilized 
fun.  He  has  dared  to  seek,  and  seeking  has  found, 
a  public  ready,  even  eager,  for  plays  that  dealt 


THE  THEATRE  CRAFTSMAN    269 

f reslily,  forcibly,  honestly,  and  seriously  with  life ; 
and  to  this  rapidly  crystallizing  body  of  theatre 
patrons  his  work  is  an  intellectual  tonic,  and  an 
esthetic  pleasure.  But  let  it  be  repeated,  that 
over  and  above  this  audience  naturally  respond- 
ing to  such  a  genius  of  the  serious  theatre,  there 
are  elements  in  Shaw's  appeal  which  make  him 
agreeable  to  the  lighter  section  of  the  theatre- 
going  public,  which,  while  it  mistakes  his  meaning 
and  has  but  a  parody  of  the  man  in  mind,  does 
buy  seats  for  his  "  show  " ! 

Yes,  Shaw  cut  the  Gordian  knot  by  remaining 
intellectual  without  being  dull.  This  is  not  to  say 
that  some  of  his  dramas  are  not  comparative 
failures.  It  is  only  to  claim  that  for  the  most 
part  Shavian  stage  stories  amuse  people  gener- 
ally, and  hold  their  place  persistently  as  acting 
drama.  And  there  could  be,  I  insist,  no  higher 
tribute  to  Shaw  as  a  craftsman  in  the  playhouse. 
This  is  the  supreme  and  ultimate  test;  that 
against  heavy  odds,  and  reversing  an  earlier  opin- 
ion, the  plays  by  Bernard  Shaw  are  increasingly 
popular.  Nothing  but  sound  technic  as  a  basis 
for  this  result  could  lead  to  such  a  result.  The 
notion  that  Shaw  succeeds  in  spite  of  defective 


270  BERNARD  SHAW 

workmanship  may  be  allowed  to  pass  into  that 
Walhalla  where  critical  and  other  mistakes  repent 
them  of  their  earthly  errors.  His  plays  bristle 
with  technical  proof  of  stage  knowledge;  the 
avoidance  of  the  soliloquy  and  aside,  the  careful 
motivation  of  all  exits  and  entrances  as  part  of 
the  aim  to  preserve  the  integrity  of  character 
and  plot;  the  sense  of  situation  and  climax;  the 
cunning  control  of  light  and  shade,  whereby 
monotony  of  tone  is  escaped;  and  the  wise  free- 
dom with  which,  as  I  have  tried  to  show,  the  dra- 
matic form  has  been  modified  to  fit  a  fresh 
purpose ;  all  this  offers  evidence  to  the  trained  ob- 
server of  a  forthright  technician  and  one  of  the 
truly  original  artists  of  the  modern  stage. 


CHAPTER  X 
SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA 

Every  writer  has  a  double  significance.  He 
may  be  regarded  for  his  worth  abstracted  from 
any  consideration  of  time  and  place,  as  we  re- 
gard the  indisputable  masters  like  Homer,  Dante, 
Shakspere.  Or,  confessedly  perhaps  of  secondary 
importance  compared  with  these,  he  may  yet  bulk 
large  in  the  history  of  letters  because  of  what 
he  accomplished  in  the  evolution  of  the  literary 
form  and  movement  of  which  he  is  a  part.  His 
value  for  his  time,  in  this  way,  can  be  so  great 
as  to  constitute  him  a  major  figure,  whatever  be 
his  final  fate,  after  the  winnowing  of  Time  has 
separated  the  wheat  from  the  chaff. 

Contemporary  judgment  can  never  be  sure  of 
a  writer's  place  and  importance  in  himself  apart 
from  these  relations  to  school  and  period:  the 
story  of  literary  criticism  with  its  laughable  mis- 
takes, its  ironic  reversal  of  opinions,  has  demon- 
strated that.  But  it  is  within  the  modest  scope 
271 


272  BERNARD  SHAW 

of  the  estimate  that  has  not  the  advantage  of 
time's  perspective,  to  recognize  certain  relative 
values  and  catch  the  meaning  of  the  individual 
author,  his  service  in  literary  evolution. 

Shaw  may  be  considered  in  this  latter  way,  while 
we  waive  the  ultimate  question  of  permanent 
standing,  a  phrase,  indeed,  which  is  self-contra- 
dictory, as  truly  when  we  have  Shakespere  in  mind 
as  when  we  seek  to  indicate  the  rank  of  one  still 
living;  how  do  we  know  in  the  year  of  grace  1916 
that  the  greatest  dramatist  of  them  all  will  sur- 
vive the  shocks  of  Time  so  that  we  may  speak  of 
his  contribution  as  "permanent"?  We  only 
know  that  he  has  successfully  weathered  the 
storms  of  three  hundred  years. 

The  practical  question  then  is,  what  impress 
has  Bernard  Shaw  made  upon  the  generation 
which,  under  the  leadership  of  Ibsen,  has  con- 
tributed to  the  development  of  English-speaking 
drama?  Is  his  place  distinctive,  important,  has 
it  significance?  Has  he  contributed  to  make  what 
we  call  modern  drama  in  such  manner  as  to  in- 
fluence it  in  form  and  substance,  in  aim  and  accom- 
plishment? For  one,  I  believe  the  answer  must  be 
an  affirmative. 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     273 

But  what  is  modern  drama,  since  we  must  de- 
limit and  define  in  order  to  see  Shaw  in  his  due 
relation  to  the  interesting  movement  of  which  he 
is  a  part? 

A  generation  is  usually  taken  to  include  a 
period  of  about  thirty-five  years.  The  drama  that 
has  been  produced  between  1880  and  the  present 
can  be  called  distinctively  modern  and  is  the 
drama  made  by  Ibsen  and  his  contemporaries  and 
followers,  in  Europe  and  the  English-speaking 
lands.  This  movement  is  definite  and  means, 
broadly  speaking,  a  more  serious  attempt  to  con- 
sider life  in  the  theatre,  to  make  the  drama 
thoughtful;  and  to  use  a  technic  which  is  the 
logical  form  for  plays  that  draw  nearer  to  life 
and  emphasize  psychology  as  a  central  interest 
for  dramatist  and  audience  alike.  A  type  of  play 
has  thus  been  evolved  which,  whatever  its  loss  on 
the  side  of  poetry  and  the  attraction  deriving 
from  so-called  literary  excellence,  has  gained 
greatly  in  reality  and  truth;  has  permanently 
contributed  to  dramatic  literature  certain  quali- 
ties of  force,  insight,  and  democratic  sympathy; 
and  at  times  has  brought  forth  masterpieces  whose 
effect  as  works  of  art  has  been  to  communicate 


274  BERNARD  SHAW 

the  illusion  of  truth  in  dealing  with  modern 
life. 

In  this  shaping  of  the  play  under  modern  con- 
ditions and  with  modern  aims,  Ibsen  beyond  all 
question  is  the  leader;  as  significant  for  our  time 
as  Shakspere  was  for  his.  He  gave  modern 
technic  its  formula  and  made  the  playhouse  a 
place  where  the  great  social  themes  now  natur- 
ally engaging  attention  might  be  discussed.  Nor 
did  he  in  so  doing  turn  the  stage  into  a  pulpit; 
for  his  dramas  were  essentially  stories  told  with 
the  skill  necessary  to  make  them  theatre  material. 
Stern  as  may  be  the  view,  and  polemic  as  are  some 
of  the  theses,  Ibsen  did  not  show  himself  as  first 
the  preacher  and  second  the  playwright,  but  in 
the  trained  opinion  of  Europe,  as  above  all  else, 
first,  last,  and  all  the  time,  a  literary  force,  an 
artist  who  used  the  stage  form  of  story. 

In  the  revolutionary  nature  of  his  technic,  the 
seriousness  of  his  themes,  and  the  seemingly  de- 
structive quality  of  his  social  criticism,  Shaw  is 
the  foremost  follower  of  the  Scandinavian  on 
English  soil.  The  differences  between  them  are 
many  and  wide ;  it  would  be  utterly  misleading  to 
say  that  the  Irishman  imitates  Ibsen ;  for  no  man 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     275 

is  more  himself,  keenly  sensitive  as  he  nevertheless 
is  to  the  social  thought  currents  of  our  day.  But 
there  is,  when  all  reservations  are  made,  a  funda- 
mental fellowship  between  the  two :  both  are  critics 
of  society,  realists  in  method,  individualists  in  at- 
titude and  teaching,  and  technicians  who  boldly 
adapt  the  stage  traditions  to  their  particular 
kind  of  endeavor. 

In  this  sense,  and  without  the  unfair  generali- 
zation which  allows  for  no  personal  dissimilarity, 
it  is  not  amiss  to  describe  Shaw  as  the  English 
Ibsen.  And  there  can  be  no  question,  I  believe,  that 
his  position  in  the  school  which  has  grown  up  on 
English  ground  is  of  like  importance.  He  is  not 
only  the  most  brilliant  satiric  dramatist  who  uses 
English  speech  during  the  period  under  discussion, 
but  the  most  influential.  He  has  been  a  pioneer, 
I  have  suggested,  in  giving  prominence  to  the 
idea  of  the  printed  play  as  a  part  of  letters ;  and 
his  plays  have  been  so  printed  as  to  make  the 
important  distinction  between  a  stage  drama  re- 
produced, shorthand  direction  and  all,  in  book 
form,  and  the  same  play  so  printed  as  to  be 
pleasurable  reading  because  intelligently  aimed  at 
the  reading  public,  and  accompanied  by  prefaces 


276  BERNARD  SHAW 

that  are  in  themselves  worthy  pieces  of  critical 
literature  about  the  stage  and  its  children. 

Shaw  in  his  themes  and  his  way  of  handling 
those  themes  has  also  pointed  out  the  path  of 
freedom  to  his  contemporaries.  At  a  moment 
when  it  was  daring  to  do  so,  and  spelled  defeat, 
he  introduced  unpleasant  and  unpopular  topics 
upon  the  stage,  and  instead  of  allowing  himself 
to  be  discouraged  by  the  cold  reception,  or  lack 
of  reception  at  all,  stalwartly  stuck  by  his  guns 
and  waited  for  an  audience  to  grow  up  to  him ;  in 
this  respect,  offering  a  sharp  contrast  with  other 
playmakers,  including  some  very  well-known  ones, 
who,  beginning  with  ideas  and  the  desire  to  do 
worthy  work,  serious  in  intention  and  unusual  in 
character,  found  it  to  their  advantage  to  aban- 
don such  an  advanced  position  and  preferred  to 
win  immediate  favor  by  catering  to  the  mob.  Shaw 
from  the  very  first  had  the  courage  of  his  con- 
victions, and  nearly  starved  before  forcing  his 
day  to  give  him  a  hearing.  His  services  in  mak- 
ing free  speech  concerning  vital  topics  possible 
upon  the  English-speaking  stage  are  so  unique 
that  it  is  highly  likely  his  significance  in  this  re- 
gard will  be  an  increasing  element  in  the  lasting 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     277 

place  he  will  take  in  our  dramatic  evolution.  No 
better  way  to  remove  the  absurdity  of  an  in- 
competent censor  can  be  devised  than  to  have  him 
forbid  the  presentation  of  such  plays  as  "  Mrs. 
Warren's  Profession  "  and  "  The  Showing-up  of 
Blanco  Posnet."  Such  action  is  its  own  worst 
enemy. 

This  dramatist  has  also  performed  a  definite 
service  in  establishing  the  fact  that  our  stage 
can  be  serious  in  intent,  so  far  as  the  nature  of 
the  subject-matter  and  aim  of  the  author  are 
concerned,  without  giving  up  the  specific  object 
of  the  theatre  to  entertain  its  patrons. 

It  is  Shaw's  peculiar  gift  and  therefore  his 
distinctive  service,  to  use  the  playhouse  for  serious 
discussion  without  being  dull ;  a  fact  amply  illus- 
trated in  the  previous  discussions.  It  is  not  the 
intellectuals  alone  who  appreciate  and  applaud 
him,  but  the  general  theatre  public ;  a  public  car- 
ing little  or  nothing  about  his  ideas  or  reforma- 
tory purposes,  but  reacting  gladly  to  his  wit  and 
humor,  his  flair  for  character,  his  genius  for  story 
and  situation.  He  kills  two  birds  with  one  stone 
because  of  the  ambidextrous  way  in  which  he  thus 
wins  the  approbation  of  gallery  and  dress  circle 


278     ,  BERNARD  SHAW 

alike.  His  plays,  often  spoken  of  by  commercial 
managers  as  if  they  were  the  temporary  fad  or 
pose  of  the  elect,  are  in  reality  popular  in  the 
democratic  use  of  the  word.  These  facts  rebut 
the  assertion  that  Shaw's  dramas  are  not  really 
dramas  at  all,  but  stage  discussions.  If  a  stage 
story  be  an  interesting  grouping  of  a  number  of 
human  beings  around  the  centralizing  magnet  of 
an  idea,  then  our  dramatist  usually  gives  his  pa- 
trons a  story;  and  to  carry  it,  he  furnishes  out 
of  a  very  remarkable  creative  fecundity  a  large, 
distinct,  and  enjoyable  number  of  characters  em- 
bracing most  of  the  t3'pes  of  English  folk  to  be 
observed  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  modern 
Great  Britain.  That  these  characters  are  salient, 
vivid,  and  highly  amusing  and  arresting  can 
hardly  be  denied. 

It  is  important  in  the  attempt  to  settle  Shaw's 
position  in  modern  drama  to  answer  the  question : 
Has  he  the  power  of  genuine  character  creation 
and  projection?  Here  is  a  fundamental  test  of 
any  dramatist.  For,  if  the  answer  be  in  the 
affirmative,  then  he  takes  his  place  among  the 
playwrights  who  are  something  more;  masters  of 
life,  interpreters  of  human  beings  to  the  masses 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     279 

of  mankind.  Such  artists  wear  the  purple  by 
right;  they  are  of  the  tribe  of  Shakspere  and 
Moliere  and  Ibsen.  Is  it  not  true  both  for  novel- 
ist and  stage  story-teller  that  this  is  the  question 
of  questions:  that  it  is  their  highest  function  to 
make  us  see,  know,  and  be  deeply  influenced  by  the 
Active  creatures  of  their  imagination  who  yet  pos- 
sess more  of  verity  for  us  than  the  flesh- and-blood 
persons  whom  we  daily  meet  in  the  dream  called 
Life? 

In  considering  Shaw's  rank,  then,  such  a  search- 
ing matter  must  be  grappled  with,  looking  to  his 
final  award.  It  is  frequently  asserted  that  Ber- 
nard Shaw's  stage  figures  are  not  human  beings 
at  all,  but  merely  projections  of  his  own  indi- 
viduality; clothes-horses  upon  which  to  hang  his 
whimsies  and  crotchets ;  brilliant,  galvanized  pup- 
pets, not  reproductions  of  the  actualities  of  life 
recognizable  as  "  true  to  experience  " :  a  phrase 
which  means — so  far  as  it  means  anything — the 
traits  and  actions  which  square  with  our  more  or 
less  limited  observation  and  knowledge  of  the 
world  of  men.  This  is  a  charge  which  has  also 
been  made,  and  perhaps  always  will  be  made 
against  the  Active  creatures  of  Charles  Dickens; 


280  BERNARD  SHAW 

a  charge  somewhat  puzzling  to  sustain,  inasmuch 
as  that  novelist,  whether  his  men  and  women  are 
veritable  or  not,  manages  to  make  them  of  lasting 
reality  in  the  affectionate  memories  of  mankind. 
The  most  ardent  adherent  of  our  dramatist  is 
not  likely  to  claim  unreservedly  that  he  stands 
with  the  greatest  in  the  portrayal  of  character. 
But  it  is  quite  possible  to  concede  this,  without 
the  extreme  of  declaring  that  behind  his  men  and 
women  in  general,  stalks  G.  B.  S.  in  a  more  or 
less  thin  disguise:  the  mask  of  sex,  or  social  con- 
dition or  type.  I  do  not  think  that  there  is 
either  perception  of  his  quality  or  justice  to  his 
achievements  in  such  assertion.  The  writer  who 
has  conceived  and  embodied  William  the  waiter, 
Mrs.  Warren  and  Vivie,  Dick  Dudgeon,  Candida, 
Lady  Cicely,  Napoleon  and  Csesar,  Doyle,  Drink- 
water,  Jack  Tanner  and  Ann,  Barbara,  Blanco 
Posnet,  and  Dubedat, — these  a  few,  where  the 
number  extended  to  meet  personal  variations  of 
preference  might  be  indefinitely  increased, — can- 
not be  accused  of  a  failure  to  add  to  the  Eng- 
lish portrait  gallery  some  distinctive  and  suc- 
cessful figures.  If  they  seem  non-human  at  first 
meeting,  it  may  be  well  to  ask  ourselves  if  we  have 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     281 

not  been  made  accustomed  in  the  consulship  of 
Plancus  to  conventionalized  patterns  of  men  and 
women  rather  than  to  very  humanity.  Perhaps 
part  of  our  debt  to  Shaw  lies  in  the  fact  that  he 
has  forced  us  to  see  and  get  wonted  to  stage  per- 
sons who,  like  their  counterparts  in  life,  are 
a  curious  bundle  of  contradictions ;  the  dramatist 
thus  broadening  the  gamut  of  stage  painting. 
The  allegation  that  Shaw's  characters  are  unreal 
I  suspect  to  be  as  unsound  as  the  allegation  that 
his  plays  are  nothing  but  talk.  At  least,  it  will 
be  good  physic  for  our  ego  to  cherish  the  thought 
that  inability  to  recognize  Shaw's  stage  creatures 
may  be  due  not  to  their  being  out  of  drawing  but 
to  some  defect  in  our  vision. 

To  be  more  specific :  this  writer  draws  historical 
personages  like  Napoleon  and  Caesar,  and  rudely 
disturbs  the  conventional  conception  of  these 
worthies.  Is  this  merely  an  attempt  to  wrest 
amusement  out  of  some  of  the  stock  material  of 
history,  to  the  result  of  an  effect  of  fresh  han- 
dling of  somewhat  shop-worn  figures?  It  might 
easily  be  so  taken,  and  often  is.  But  it  were  wiser 
to  see  that  such  rehabilitation  is  in  the  service  of  a 
perfectly  sober  theory  on  Shaw's  part:  namely, 


282  BERNARP  SHAW 

he  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  usual  representation 
of  a  man  like  Csesar,  world-conqueror  and  author 
of  the  "  Commentaries,"  quite  hides  the  rather  im- 
portant fact  that  he  was  a  human  being:  and  in 
tlie  play  which  deals  with  him  he  endeavors  to  ex- 
plain Caesar  by  humanizing  him.  The  real  man 
had  been  lost  in  the  Et  tu  Brute  pose.  Shaw  tries 
to  motivate  one  whom  we  know  through  a  few 
unsatisfactory  external  incidents  and  acts. 
Whether  he  brings  us  nearer  to  the  real  Caesar 
is  not  primarily  the  question:  the  aim  is  worthy, 
and  the  method,  it  would  seem,  sound:  for  with- 
out consistent  motivation,  historical  characters 
sink  into  hopeless  figureheads:  become  what 
George  Washington  became  to  countless  school 
children,  the  man  who  could  not  tell  a  lie ;  in  other 
words,  an  unbelievable  spook.  How  it  warms 
Washington  for  us  if  we  only  hear  some  one  say 
that  he  could  lie,  but  refused  to  do  so !  We  be- 
gin not  only  to  believe  in  him,  but  to  admire  him. 
Those  who  in  declaring  that  the  Father  of  his 
Country  could  not  tell  a  lie  sought  to  do  him  a 
service,  overlooked  the  sufficiently  patent  fact  that 
it  is  exactly  the  way  to  kill  all  interest  in  his 
character  or  even  existence.     Yet  no  less  an  his- 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     283 

torian  than  Bancroft  solemnly  sets  down  the 
statement  that  Washington  could  no  more  depart 
from  truth  than  a  star  from  its  orbit.  One  can 
but  wonder  if  the  youngest  schoolboy  will  swal- 
low that.  If  he  do,  he  must  be  profoundly  dis- 
couraged at  the  information.  It  really  would 
seem  as  if  in  the  older  treatment  of  the  immortal 
George,  the  function  of  history  were  to  make 
Americanism  a  myth  and  patriotism  a  nuisance. 

At  least,  then,  we  must  distinguish  between 
Shaw  creating  monstrosities,  mere  projections  of 
himself,  and  Shaw  widening  the  range  of  stage 
characters  by  refusing  to  be  confined  to  the  well- 
worn  categories :  the  "  leads,"  "  heavies,"  and 
"juveniles"   of  tradition. 

At  bottom,  it  is  a  question  of  creation.  If  such 
characters  are  shells  into  which  personal  theories 
can  be  poured,  and  are  made  by  their  begetter 
for  that  purpose,  then  they  cannot  ring  true  as 
genuine  characterization.  We  see  them  through 
an  historical  glass,  darkly. 

And  so  in  the  dramatist's  handling  of  hu- 
manity, whether  historical  or  Active,  we  have  to 
ask  ourselves  if  we  are  not  confusing  truth  and 
tradition. 


284  BERNARD  SHAW 

If  this  idea  that  Shaw's  stage  people  are  possi- 
bly truer  than  the  stage  convention  and  nearer 
life  just  because  they  seem  oddly  different  be  a 
sound  one,  then  logically  his  characters  will  gain 
in  credence  and  acceptability  as  time  familiarizes 
us  with  them  and  a  broader,  deeper  conception  of 
what  human  beings  really  are  creeps  gradually 
into  art.  At  present,  it  is,  I  imagine,  temperate 
to  say  that  Shaw  has  given  the  world  many 
salient,  enjoyable  studies  of  modern  types  and 
made  them  live  as  veritable  flesh-and-blood  crea- 
tures and  not  mere  skeletons  upon  which  to  hang 
the  trappings  of  his  Shavian  notions. 

It  will,  with  less  probable  objection,  be  granted 
that  the  dialogue  through  which  these  stage  folk 
are  revealed  is  of  high  literary  excellence:  in  in- 
cisive attraction  and  the  effect  of  truth,  the  veri- 
similitude which  produces  the  illusion  of  reality. 
One  reason  why  plays  like  "  She  Stoops  to  Con- 
quer "  and  "  The  School  for  Scandal  "  hold  the 
boards  today  is  because  the  language  in  which 
they  are  written  is  of  genuine  worth:  they  are 
not  only  good  acting  plays  but  pieces  of  literature, 
as  we  say.  And  it  is  exactly  so  with  Shaw's :  they 
stand  the  test  of  reading  and  re-reading.     How 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     285 

many  plays  do?  Bernard  Shaw  is  a  conspicuous 
and  important  dramatist  today  for  the  very 
good  reason,  though  by  no  means  the  only  one, 
that  he  has  style:  his  manner  of  writing  is  his 
own,  and  possesses  distinction  and  a  happy  idio- 
matic freshness.  He  is,  quite  independent  of  be- 
ing a  dramatist,  one  of  the  few  admirable  and 
sound  writers  of  the  day. 

With  characterization  and  dialogue  to  his  credit, 
we  may  add  that  he  has  a  gift,  over  and  above  all 
that  industry  can  do  to  develop  it,  for  the  dra- 
matic nexus  of  a  story  blossoming  in  scene  and 
situation:  and  we  might  define  a  situation  as  a 
•scene  at  its  tensest  moment  of  interest.  All  the 
reiterated  careless  talk  about  Shaw's  having  no 
theatre  sense  for  curtains  and  climaxes  is  comi- 
cally erroneous,  as  I  trust  the  discussion  of  the 
dramas  in  sequence  has  shown;  it  overlooks  his 
constant  and  brilliant  control  and  manipulation 
of  the  raw  material  of  the  theatre  in  such  wise  as 
to  give  us  scenes  of  all  but  unexampled  power. 
Even  in  a  play  like  "  Getting  Married,"  which 
might  be  named  as  the  least  dramatic  of  his  reper- 
tory, when  we  have  listened  straight  through  to 
the  vivid  battledore  and  shuttlecock  of  an  argu- 


286  BERNARD  SHAW 

merit  which  curiously  neither  tires  nor  bores,  is 
not  the  scene  when  the  mayoress  turns  mystic 
one  that  has  very  great  stage  value — allowing,  of 
course,  for  the  genre  of  the  piece,  namely,  satiric 
high  comedy?  When  the  curtain  rings  up  on  the 
first  act  of  "  You  Never  Can  Tell  "  we  saw  that 
the  very  use  of  the  dentist's  office  furnishes  proof 
positive  that  here  is  a  playwright,  like  the  late 
Clyde  Fitch  in  this  respect,  with  an  instinctive 
feeling  for  stage  effectivism  in  the  use  of  daringly 
homely,  fresh  matter,  hitherto  dodged  by  the  ex- 
perts of  the  playhouse. 

The  common  idea  that  a  grave  defect  in  Shaw's 
equipment  as  playwright  is  to  be  found  in  his  lack 
of  emotional  quality  is  based  on  a  narrow  and 
false  traditional  conception  of  the  use  of  the  hu- 
man emotions  in  drama.  When  emotion  is  spoken 
of  in  this  view,  what  is  meant  is  sex  emotion  of  a 
a  sort,  and  that  not  the  best. 

With  his  fervently  held  faith  in  those  relations 
of  sex  based  upon  sympathies  of  the  mind  and 
spirit  rather  than  upon  the  appeal  of  the  senses, 
he  has  not  in  thirty  plays  for  one  moment  striven 
for  attention  or  approval  by  so  presenting  men 
and  women  under  the  influence  of  what  is  euphe- 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     287 

mistically  called  "  love  "  as  to  feed  the  appetite 
for  the  suggestive,  the  sensualistic,  or  the  pas- 
sional. A  dramatist  who  foregoes  all  the  oppor- 
tunities offered  by  this  twiddling  upon  sex  har- 
monics can  certainly  be  said  to  have  the  courage 
of  his  convictions:  he  abandons  instantly  and 
forever  that  motive  of  appeal  and  applause  which 
is  infinitely  the  most  telling  with  any  general 
audience. 

But  he  also  foregoes  this  chance  in  the  higher 
ranges  of  sex  relations :  scenes  of  tenderness,  lofty 
sentiment,  and  sublimated  passion  are  equally  ab- 
sent from  his  work ;  and  that  this  abstention  limits 
his  power  and  cripples  his  effect  may  be  granted. 
I  would  not  for  a  moment  wish  to  deny  that  some 
of  the  finest  exhibitions  of  human  psychology  are 
lost  to  the  dynamics  of  the  theatre  by  this  instinct 
and  attitude  of  Shaw's ;  for  it  is  both.  He  is  so 
seized  with  the  idea  that  a  pseudo-romantic  con- 
ception of  each  other  has  worked  havoc  with  men 
and  women  in  the  world,  that  his  reaction  from 
the  conventional  treatment  of  sex  leads  him  into 
an  extreme  that  is  hardly  natural  to  his  tempera- 
ment, which  is  obviously  not  cool  and  calculating 
in  such  matters,  but  perfervid  and — he  will  take 


288  BERNARD  SHAW 

it  hard  of  me  for  saying  it  once  more — sensitively 
sentimental.  The  result  is  that  he  sternly  ban- 
ishes the  soft  and  melting  passages  of  the  central 
passion  of  mankind  from  his  scenes.  Nor  is  he 
himself  unaware  of  this  weakness  of  his,  as  he 
would,  intellectually,  regard  it,  for  he  makes 
open  fun  of  himself  in  the  person  of  John  Tanner. 
Tanner  is  humorously  clear-eyed  as  to  his  in- 
fatuation for  Ann,  and  while  his  judgment,  his 
reason,  rebels  that  he  should  be  made  part  of  the 
life-force  in  this  humiliatingly  traditional  fash- 
ion, his  heart  moves  him  to  take  her  in  his  arms 
and  be  happy. 

If,  however,  for  sex  love  in  the  usual  sense  we 
substitute  love  in  various  of  the  broader  meanings 
of  this  exasperatingly  protean  word,  we  shall  find 
this  dramatist  emotionally  powerful  and  be  forced 
to  release  him  from  the  charge  of  being  cold 
and  intellectual  at  the  expense  of  the  warmer  ap- 
peals of  dramatic  representation.  The  emotional 
value,  for  instance,  involved  in  and  displayed  by 
the  relations  of  Vivie  and  her  mother  is  tremen- 
dous. And  we  certainly  miss  the  point  if  we  fail 
to  see  that  the  very  fact  of  John  Tanner's  satiri- 
cally humorous  arraignment  of  Ann  in  "  Man  and 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     289 

Superman  "  makes  all  the  stronger  the  genuine 
passion  with  which  he  succumbs  to  her  at  the  end. 
The  whole  relation,  too,  of  Candida  to  March- 
banks,  a  relation  offering  hitherto  unexplored  re- 
gions to  the  playwright,  is  surcharged  with  emo- 
tional connotations  that  make  the  play  most  ex- 
citing to  the  perceptive  auditor.  No  man  so  capa- 
ble as  Shaw  of  leviathan  noble  rages  and  lofty 
enthusiasms  could  fail  to  put  into  his  depictions  of 
humanity  the  swift-flowing  red  blood  of  belief  and 
protest  and  prayer.  It  would  be  far  nearer  the 
truth  to  maintain  the  thesis  that  in  his  plays  in 
general  he  is  too  emotional  for  his  own  good; 
meaning  that  he  cares  so  much  for  the  ideas  back 
of  his  fables  that,  unlike  Moliere,  it  tinges  his 
treatment  with  a  polemic  bias  that  injures  its 
artistic  quality.  To  this,  the  defender  of  Shaw 
might  well  reply  that  even  granting  the  assump- 
tion, his  representations  have  the  story  interest 
and  the  dramatic  clinch  which  hold  the  attention 
and  create  pleasure:  and  that  this  result  justi- 
fies the  means. 

But  in  estimating  the  position  of  a  writer,  it 
surely  is  not  sufficient  to  credit  him  with  excellence 
in  the  handling  of  the  form  he  chooses  to  cast 


290  BERNARD  SHAW 

his  thought  in,  nor  to  acknowledge  the  pleas- 
ure to  be  derived  from  his  presentation.  The 
thought  itself,  as  a  personal  reaction  to  life, 
and  in  the  end  as  a  contribution,  destructive  or 
constructive,  to  the  slow  shaping  of  human  des- 
tiny which  works  out  through  the  machinery 
we  call  society,  must  be  at  bottom  of  decisive 
moment  in  the  award  Time  shall  give  him.  The 
personality  of  Shaw  is,  as  our  scrutiny  of  his 
work  has  made  apparent,  piquant  and  arresting; 
and  his  manner  of  unfolding  it  in  drama  has  added 
to  the  joy  of  nations.  But  is  his  thought,  when 
we  strive  to  detach  it  from  the  manner  of  presen- 
tation, of  such  validity  and  vitality  as  to  endure 
the  wear  and  tear  of  Time?  That  is  a  question 
that  goes  deeper,  and  cannot  be  dodged  by  any 
author  who  would  claim  serious  consideration. 

That  Shaw  is  not  a  philosopher  in  the  sense 
that  he  has  evolved  a  synthesized  general  view  of 
things,  has  been  shown  in  former  chapters,  in  the 
course  of  the  study  of  him  as  social  thinker  and 
mystic  poet.  I  have  suggested  that  the  literary 
artist  as  such  is  never  the  philosopher,  first  and 
foremost;  for  the  moment  he  becomes  a  philoso- 
pher first,  he  ceases  to  be  a  literary  force.     Con- 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     291 

sider  Tolstoy.  Few,  if  any,  writers  have  been 
both.  Either  the  philosopher  has  crowded  out  the 
artist,  or  the  reverse  has  happened.  But  the 
artist  can  be  full  of  philosophical  suggestiveness, 
and  often  is ;  Goethe  occurs  to  me  as  a  noble  ex- 
ample. In  the  same  way,  Bernard  Shaw,  tingling 
with  his  feeling  for  the  intellectual  currents  of  our 
era,  intensely  alive  to  the  trend  of  modern  evo- 
lution, has  packed  his  work  up  to  the  gunwales 
with  seemingly  unsafe  and  therefore  contra- 
band goods  and  as  a  sort  of  independent  cruiser 
upon  modern  seas  made  it  lively  for  ships  of  the 
regular  lines.  He  has  forced  them  to  do  some 
quick  sailing  and  perhaps  lower  the  record  of 
ocean  liners,  which  is  a  service.  And  I  believe  he 
prefers  this  almost  piratical  sailing  for  the  ad- 
vantage it  gives  him  of  unrestraint  and  freedom. 
And  if  it  be  correct  to  see  Shaw  primarily  as 
a  literary  force,  doing  all  the  better  work  because 
he  refuses  to  have  the  ponderous  consistency  of 
the  cut-and-dried  philosopher,  then  the  question 
whether  his  thought  is  sound  or  not  becomes  sec- 
ondary so  far  as  awarding  him  his  position  is 
concerned.  This  is  always  true.  If  a  writer  re- 
flect important  issues  of  his  day  with  force,  con- 


292  BERNARD  SHAW 

viction,  and  a  personal  attractiveness,  he  will 
survive  in  all  probability,  whatever  may  be  the 
fate  of  his  creed  or  theory.  The  belief,  the  style 
that  was  its  honest  embodiment,  will  remain, 
long  after  the  views,  judged  as  to  their  accepta- 
bility, have  been  thrown  to  the  junk  heap.  Mil- 
ton's "  Paradise  Lost  "  is  still  the  greatest  Eng- 
lish, epic,  although  we  smile  tolerantly  at  its 
theology,  which  now  appears  not  only  jejune  but 
puerile.  Shakspere  himself  is  not  valued  three 
hundred  years  after  his  death  for  his  intellectual 
attitudes  or  aspects,  but  is  stronger  than  ever 
as  our  first  expressionist  and  painter  of  human 
life.  Shaw's  own  words,  in  his  letter  to  his  friend, 
Mr.  Walkley,  may  be  turned  on  himself  here: 
''  He  who  has  nothing  to  assert  has  no  style  and 
can  have  none:  he  who  has  something  to  assert 
will  go  as  far  in  power  of  st3^1e  as  its  momentous- 
ness  and  his  conviction  will  carry  him.  Disprove 
his  assertion  after  it  is  made,  yet  its  style  remains. 
Darwin  has  no  more  destroyed  the  style  of  Job 
nor  of  Handel  than  Martin  Luther  destroyed  the 
style  of  Giotto.  All  the  assertions  get  disproved 
sooner  or  later;  and  so  we  find  the  world  full  of 
a  magnificent  debris  of  artistic  fossils,  with  the 


SHAW'S  PLACE  IN  MODERN  DRAMA     293 

matter-of-fact  credibility  gone  clean  out  of  them, 
but  the  form  still  splendid." 

Wise  words  and  true,  and  entirely  applicable  to 
the  man  who  wrote  them.  Nietzsche  is  not  a  con- 
structive philosopher  but  a  brilliant  literary 
power ;  Ibsen  is  not  a  philosopher  and  by  his  own 
statement  did  not  wish  so  to  be  taken.  Browning 
is  not  a  philosopher,  pace  the  societies  founded 
in  his  name  and  assuming  that  his  function  was  to 
give  us  nuts  to  crack.  Shaw  gives  us  much  to 
think  about,  and  is  of  great  value  to  suggest, 
stimulate,  clarify,  pique.  And  since  he  does  these 
things  in  a  way  to  be  highly  enjoyable  he  takes 
his  place  as  a  literary  force,  and  now  and  in  the 
future  is  to  be  studied  as  such.  The  claim  that 
he  is  a  later  Moliere  may  be  an  excessive  one ;  but 
certainly  he  performs  for  his  day  and  generation 
very  much  the  same  service  which  the  greatest 
dramatist  of  France  performed  for  his;  namely, 
to  correct  morals  with  a  smiling  mouth,  castigat 
mores  ridendo:  and  to  say  more  than  this,  either 
of  Moliere  or  Shaw,  were  to  set  them  in  another 
category  than  that  occupied  by  the  makers  of 
literature.  A  challenging,  vital  thinker,  a  keen 
and  fascinating  wielder  of  words,  a  skilled  shaper 


K 


294  BERNARD  SHAW 

of  story  in  dramatic  mould,  a  modern  critic  with 
a  passion  for  social  betterment,  who  lives  up  to 
his  belief,  and  is  aspirational  in  his  social  dream, 
it  does  not  seem  likely  that  when  the  dust  of  com- 
bat clears  away  from  around  a  figure  whose  nat- 
ural place  is  the  arena,  we  shall  fail  to  see  him, 
still  fighting,  fighting  ever  on,  though  the  cause 
be  long  since  lost  and  won ;  an  enheartening  spec- 
tacle, as  the  sight  of  an  honest  fighter  for  a  thing 
worth  fighting  for  must  always  be.  Later  gen- 
erations may  even  see  Shaw  plainer  than  do  we: 
such  reversals  are  the  commonplace  of  history. 
But  in  any  event,  it  is  a  little  difficult  at  present 
to  imagine  him  as  supine  and  still;  one  finds  it 
easier  to  hear  him  cry,  with  Browning: 

"  /  was  ever  a  fighter^  so — one  fight  more. 
The  best  and  the  last!  " 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  non-dramatic  writings  of  Shaw  are  volu- 
minous and  no  list  of  them  need  be  given  in  con- 
nection with  this  study  of  the  playwright.  They 
include  five  pieces  of  fiction,  two  volumes  of 
dramatic  criticism,  and  various  books  of  essay 
and  criticism,  of  which  "  The  Quintessence  of 
Ibsen "  is  noteworthy.  Much  of  Shaw's  best 
thought  in  the  field  of  economics  and  sociology  is 
to  be  found  in  his  contributions  to  "  The  Fabian 
Essays."  The  Prefaces  to  the  plays  contain  a 
large  and  valuable  part  of  his  opinions  not  alone 
upon  drama  and  the  theatre,  but  concerning 
things  in  general:  they  are  his  explicit  critical 
view  which  in  the  plays  themselves  is  more  or 
less  concealed  in  the  story. 

A  full  list  of  the  dramas  in  the  order  of  their 
composition  follows : 

Widowers'  Houses,  1885-92. 
The  Philanderer,    1893. 
Mrs.  Warren's  Profession,  1893. 
Arms  and  the  Man,   1894. 
Candida,  1894-. 

You  Never  Can  Tell,  1895-6-7. 
295 


296  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  Man  of  Destiny,  1895. 
——The  Devil's  Disciple,  1896-7. 

Caesar  and  Cleopatra,  1898. 

Captain  Brassbound's  Conversion,  1898-9. 

The  Admirable  Bashville,  1902-3. 

Man  and  Superman,  1903-4. 

John  Bull's  Other  Island,  1904. 

How  He  Lied  to  Her  Husband,  1904. 

Passion,  Poison,  and  Petrifaction,   1905. 
13^  or  Barbara,  1905. 

The  Doctor's  Dilemma,  1906. 

The  Interlude  at  The  Playhouse,  1907. 

Getting  Married,  1908. 

The  Showing-up  of  Blanco  Posnet,  1909- 

Press  Cuttings,  1909- 

Misalliance,   1909-10. 

The  Dark  Lady  of  the  Sonnets,  1910. 

Fanny's  First  Play,  1910-11. 
"-•^^i.Androcles  and  the  Lion,  1912. 

Overruled,  1912. 
V—Fygmalion,  1912. 

Great  Catherine,   1913. 

The  Music  Cure,  1913. 

O'Flaherty,  V.  C,  1915   (unproduced  and  unpuh- 
lished). 


INDEX 


Abbey  Theatre,  Dublin,  147, 

187 
Aberdeen,  66 
Actors'  Orphanage,  119 
Adelphi  Terrace,  30,  231 
"Admirable  Bashville,  The: 
or        Constancy         Unre- 
warded,"  106-107 
Albany,  N.  Y.,  89 
American  Academy  of  Dra- 
matic Arts,  83 
^,>Androcles   and   the   Lion," 
28,   g4,    164,    167^173,    176, 
247,  262 
j_^»dTt)cles,     in     "  Androcles 
ana   the   Lion,^''  171,    172, 
248 
Ann,  in   "Man   and   Super- 
man,"   78,    109,    110,    112, 
113,  179,  260,  280,  288 
Archer,    William,     dramatic 
critic,  and  Shaw,  24,  119, 
164,  255 
"  Areopagitica,  The,"  153 
"Arms   and    the   Man,"   58- 

65,  66,  96,  123,  252 
Arnold,   Matthew,  211 
Art,  liberty  in,  153,   163 
Asquith,    Lord,    in    "  Press 

Cuttings,"   155 
"  Autocrat  of  the  Breakfast 

Table,  The,"  134 
Avenue  Theatre,  58 
Ayot  St.  Lawrence,  30 

Bacon,  Sir  Francis,  150 
Balsquith,    in    "  Press    Cut- 
tings," 156 


Balzac,  201 

Bancroft,  283 

Banger,  Mrs.,  in  "  Press  Cut- 
tings," 154 

Barbara  in  "Major  Bar- 
bara," 121,  122,  123,  124, 
125,  127,  128,  280 

Barker,  Granville,  160,  167, 
168,   246 

Barrie,  J.  M.,  72,  103,  173, 
263 

Bentley  (Bunny),  in  "Mis- 
alliance,"   158,    159,    160 

Bergson,    222,    230 

Berkeley  Lyceum,  N.  Y.,  74, 
82 

Berlin,  58,  82,  89,  167,  176 

Berliner   Theater,  89 

Bernstein,   253 

Bijou  Theatre,  89 

Blanche,  in  "  Widowers* 
Houses,"   44,  45 

Blanco,  in  "  The  Showing-up 
of  Blanco  Posnet,"  149, 
150,  151,  152,  219,  220,  223, 
280 

"Blanco  Posnet,  The  Show- 
ing-up of,"  147-153,  219, 
252,  261,  277 

Bleecker    Hall,    Albany,    89 

Bluntschli,  in  "  Arms  and 
the  Man,"  59,  61,  63,  64 

Bobby,  in  "  Fanny's  First 
Play,"  165,  166 

Brassbound,  Captain,  102, 
104,   105 

Bret  Harte,  148 

Brieux,   Eugene,   12,  56,  94» 


297 


INDEX 


Britisher,  Shaw's  typical,  87, 
118 

Broadbent,  in  "  John  Bull's 
Other  Island,"  115,  116, 
208 

Browning,  Robert,  229,  293, 
294 

Brussels,   67 

Bunny  (Bentley)  in  "Mis- 
alliance,"   158,    159,    160 

Bunyan,  151 

Burgess,  in  "  Candida,"  72 

Burgoyne,  General,  in  "  The 
Devil's  Disciple,"  94 

Byron,  111 

"  Caesar  and  Cleopatra,"  84, 
95-100,  227,  262 

Caesar,  in  "  Caesar  and  Cleo- 
patra," 96,  97,  98,  99,  227, 
231,  280,  281,  282 

Campbell,  Mrs.  Patrick,  177, 
182 

Candida,  68,  69,  70,  72,  73, 
75,  254,  260,  280,  289 

"Candida,"  9,  27,  31;  ana- 
lyzed, 66-74;  75,  76,  77, 
80,  96,  123,  230,  231,  244, 
245,  252,  268 

"  Captain  Brassbound's  Con- 
version," 77,  82;  100-105, 
252,  256,  262 

Carlyle,  5,   7,  31 

Carpenter,  Edward,  20 

"  Cashel  Byron's  Profes- 
sion," 106 

Catherine,  in  "Arms  and 
the  Man,"  61 

Catherine  of  Russia,  in 
"  Great  Catherine,"  183, 
184 

Celt,  a  generic  term,  16 

Censorship  of  plays,  Shaw 
on,  6;  147,  187,  277 

Charteris,  in  "The  Philan- 
derer," 47 

"Cherry  Orchard,"  246 


Chesterton,  on  Shaw,  151; 
186 

Chicago,  46 

"  Chocolate  Soldier,  The," 
65 

Christian  Science,  136 

Christians,  169,   170,   172 

Church,  The,  208 

Civic  and  Dramatic  Guild, 
The,  153 

Clandon,  in  "  You  Never  Can 
Tell,"  78 

Cleopatra,  in  "  Caesar  and 
Cleopatra,"  97,  99 

Collins,  in  "Getting  Mar- 
ried," 141,  143 

Comedy  Theatre,  N.  Y.,  163 

"  Commentaries,"  Caesar's, 
282 

Congreve,  42 

"  Connecticut  Yankee  at  the 
Court  of  King  Arthur," 
185 

Copyright  Laws,  English, 
106 

Corbett,  James  J.,  106 

Court  Theatre,  46,  82,  114, 
120,  129 

Crampton,  in  "  You  Never 
Can  Tell,"  81 

Crane,  Stephen,  64 

Craven,  in  "The  Philan- 
derer," 48 

Criterion  Theatre,  100,  163 

Critics,  Dramatic,  164,  240, 
241,  259 

Croydon,  82 

Cuthbertson,  in  "The  Phi- 
landerer," 48 

"Cymbeline,"  48 

Daily  Mail,  London,  139 
Daly,  Arnold,  67 
Daly's  Theatre,  N.  Y.,  106 
"  Damaged  Goods,"  12 
Daniels,   Elder,   in   "  BlanCO 
Posnet,"    150,   220 


INDEX 


299 


Dante,  271 

"Dark    Lady    of    the    Son- 
nets, The,"  160-162,  262 
Darwin,  19,  217,  292 
Denshawai  Horror,  The,  118 
Deutsches    Theater,     Berlin, 

58,  129 
\  f  Devil's  Disciple,  The,"  89- 
^'   95x96,  123,  139,  148,^^17 

221,  248,  251,  254,  255 
Dick,  see  Dudgeon 
Dickens,  72,  85,  159,  182,  279 
Divorce,  Marriage  and,  141- 

146 
"  Doctor's     Dilemma,    The," 

46,  129-139,  232,  252,  255, 

258,  262,  264 
Don    Juan,    in    "  Man    and 

Superman,"  111,  223 
Doolittle,    in    "  Pygmalion," 

182 
Dora,     in     "  Fanny's     First 

Play,"  165,  166 
Doyle,  280 
Drama,    the    modern,    Shaw 

in,  271 
Dresden,  66 
Drinkwater,        in        "  Capt. 

Brassbound's  Conversion," 

104,  280 
Dubedat,  in   "The   Doctor's 

Dilemma,"    130,    232,   258, 

280 
Dublin,  8;  Shaw's  life  in,  17- 

18,  263 
Dudgeon,     Dick,     in     "  The 

Devil's     Disciple,"     90-94, 

221,  251,  254,  280 
Duke    of    York's     Theatre, 

The,  173 

Edison  Telephone  Company, 

19 
Edith,  in  "  Getting  Married," 

142 
Elder  Daniels,  see  Daniels 
Eliot,  George,  1,  151,  207 


Eliza,  in  "Pygmalion,"  178 
180,  181,  182 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  161,  162, 
184 

Elizabethan  dramatists  criti- 
cised, 107 

Elliot,  Gertrude,  96 

Emerson,  128,  218,  219,  229 

Empire  Theatre,  N.  Y.,  82, 
100 

English  art  ideals,  99 

English,  see  Britisher 

Ervine,  Mr.,  187 

Essie,  in  "The  Devil's  Dis- 
ciple," 90 

Eugenics,  72,  160,  193,  195, 
198,  199,  235 

Eugenists   satirized,   73,   160 

Evolution,  Doctrine  of,  216 

Eynsford-Hills,  Mrs.,  in 
"Pygmalion,"   182 

Fabian  creed,  23,  190;  policy, 
194 

Fabian  Essays,  24 

Fabian  Society,  founded,  22 

Family  life,  171,  200  et  seq. 

"Fanny's  First  Play,"  31, 
162-167,  177,  223,  243,  262, 
268 

Farrell,  Mrs.,  in  "  Press  Cut- 
tings,"  155,   156 

Feemv,  in  "  The  Showing-up 
of  'Blanco  Posnet,"  150, 
220 

Ferrovius,  170 

Fitch,  Clyde,  286 

Forbes-Robertson,  Sir  John- 
ston, 96 

France,  Shaw's  vogue  in,  3 

Frank,  in  "  Mrs.  Warren's 
Profession,"  50,  51,  53 

Frankenstein,  181 

Freddv,  in  "  Pygmalion," 
179,' 182 

French  triangle,  254 

Freud,  222 


300 


INDEX 


Galsworthy's  "Justice,"  54 
Garden  Theatre,  N.  Y.,  77 
Gardiner,  in  "  Mrs.  Warren's 

Profession,"  51 
Garrick  Theatre,  N.  Y.,  49, 

114 
Gaul,  228 

George,  Grace,  101,  120 
George,  Henry,  influence  up- 
on Shaw,  20,  22,  192 
George,    Mrs.,    in    "  Getting 

Married,"    141,    143,    146, 

224-226,  286 
Germany,  Shaw's  vogue  in,  3 
"Getting   Married,"   28,   46, 

140-46,  195,  224,  244,  245, 

261,  263,  268,  285 
"Ghosts,"   49 
Gibney,    Mrs.,    in   "  Fanny's 

First  Play,"  166 
Giotto,  292 
Giuseppi,  in   "  The  Man  of 

Destiny,"  88 
Gloria,  in  "  You  Never  Can 

Tell,"  78,  81 
Goethe,  291 
Grace,  in  "  The  Philanderer," 

47,  49 
"Great  Catherine,"  84,  183- 

185,  243,  268 
Greek  drama,  264 
Grein's  Independent  Theatre 

movement,  26 

Haeckel,  217 

Haffigan,    in    "John    Bull's 

Other  Island,"  115,  116 
Hale,      Professor      Edward 

Everett,   149 
Hammersmith,  89 
Hammon's  book  on  Shaw,  3, 

121 
Handel,  292 
Hapgood,   Norman,  76 
Haymarket      Theatre,      141, 

158,  160 
"Healer,  The,"  135 


Heine,  11 

Helden,   58 

Helmer,  in  "  A  Doll's 
House,"    250 

Henderson,  Dr.,  Shavian 
biographer,  15,  50^  75,  77, 
108,  230,  243 

Her  Majesty's  Theatre,  176 

Herald  Square  Theatre,  N. 
Y.,  58 

Hero,  The,  satirized,  59-60, 
202 

Herrick's  novel,  135 

Higgins,  in  "  Pygmalion," 
178-182 

Holmes,  Dr.  O.  W.,  134,  135 

Home  Rule,  for  Ireland,  117 

Homer,  243,  271 

Hotchkiss,  in  "  Getting  Mar- 
ried," 141 

"  How  He  Lied  to  Her  Hus- 
band," 74-76,  82,  88,  262, 
268 

Hudson  Theatre,  N.  Y.,  108 

Huxley,  19,  216 

Hyde  Park,  20,  32,  119 

Hypatia,  in  "  Misalliance," 
158,  160 

Ibsen,  Shaw  compared  with, 
32,  42,  50,  53,  56,  62,  149, 
181,  190,  196,  250,  254, 
259,  261,  265,  272-274,  279, 
293 

Imperial  Theatre,  106 

Independent  Theatre,  39,  46, 
49,  58,  66 

India,  158 

"Interlude  at  The  Play- 
house, The,"  139-40 

Ireland,  Shaw  ancestor  in, 
16,  187 

Irish  Literary  Theatre,  The, 
114 

Irish  Players,  The,  147,  150, 
263 

Irish     question,     in     "  John 


INDEX 


301 


Bull's  Other  Island,"  115- 
116 

"Irrational   Knot,   The,"  24 
Irving,  Henry,  83 

James,  William,  57 

Jesus,  Doctrines  of,  168,  169 

Job,  292 

"John  Bull's  Other  Island," 
114-120,  131,  208 

Johnny,  in  "  Misalliance," 
158 

Joyne,  J.  L.,  20 

Judith,  in  "  The  Devil's  Dis- 
ciple," 94 

Julia,  in  "  The  Philanderer," 
47 

Juno,  Mrs.,  in  "Overruled," 
175 

"Justice,"    Galsworthy's,   54 

Keegan,    Father,    in    "  John 

Bull's  Other  Island,"  116- 

118,  208 
Kennedy,  263 
Kingsley,  Charles,  73 
Kingston,  Gertrude,  101 
Kingston  Theatre,  114 
Kingsway,  The,  163 
Kitchener,  Lord,  155,  156 
Knox,     Mrs.,    in     "  Fanny's 

First  Play,"  166 
Konigliches    Schauspielhaus, 

66 

Lady     Cicely,     in     "Capt. 

Brassbound's   Conversion," 

102-105,   127,  252,  280 
Lady   Corinthia,    in    "Press 

Cuttings,"   154 
"Lady  Windermere's  Fan," 

37 
Lamarck,  217 
Land  Reform  Union,  20 
Larry,      in      "John      Bull's 

Other  Island,"  115,  116 


Lavinia,  170 

Leo,  in  "Getting  Married," 
141 

Lessing  Theater,  176 

"Letter  to  Father  Damien," 
118 

Liberty,  171 

Lickcheese,  42 

"Little   Eyolf,"  62 

Little  Theatre,  163,  186 

Lomax,  in  "Major  Bar- 
bara,"  122 

London,  Shaw's  struggles  in, 
4,  17  et  seq.;  49,  m,  67, 
82,  89,  93,  134 

London  School  Board,  29 

London  Stage  Society,  The, 
76,  100,  106,  108 

Lord  Chamberlain,  censor- 
ship of,  147 

Lord  Summerhays,  in  "  Mis- 
alliance," 158 

Louis,  in  "  The  Doctor's  Di- 
lemma,"  131-133 

Louka,  in  "  Arms  and  the 
Man,"  61,  64 

Love,  Shavian  philosophy 
anent,  44,  158,  226-229, 
287-288 

Luther,  Martin,  292 

McCabe,  Shavian  biographer, 

15,  16,  20,  23 
McCarthy,  Lillah,  165,  167 
Macaroni      Committee      and 

Company,  in  "  The  Music 

Cure,"  186 
Mackaye's  "Mater,"  103 
"Madras  House,"  246 
"Magic,"    186 
"Major    Barbara,"    120-128, 

131    197 
Mallo'ck,  W.  H.,  211 
"  Man  and  Superman,"  9,  45, 

108-114,  126,  156,  186,  252, 

262,  288 
Manchester,  154 


302 


INDEX 


"Man  of  Destiny,  The,"  74, 
77,  82-89,  118,  262 

Mansfield,  Richard,  58,  67, 
83,  89 

Marchbanks,  in  "  Candida," 
68-72,  230,  289 

Marconi  scandal,  185 

Margaret,  in  "  Fanny's  First 
Plav,"  165,  166,  167,  223 

Mark  Twain,  185 

Marriage,  46;  in  "Getting 
Married,"  141-146 ;  in 
"Misalliance,"  158;  in 
"Overruled,"  173-176;  245 

Martyr  type,  169,  172 

Marx,  22,  192 

"Mater,"  103 

"Maternity,"   12,  94 

Maude,  Cyril,  76,  77,  83,  119, 
139 

Megaera,  in  "  Androcles  and 
the  Lion,"  171 

Meredith,  George,  and  inter- 
viewers, 31 

Michael  Angelo,  232 

Middleton,  263 

Milton,  John,  153,  292 

"Misalliance,"    157-160,    196 

Mitchener,  in  "  Press  Cut- 
tings," 156 

"Moliere  of  the  Twentieth 
Century,  The,"  3 

Moliere,  the  Don  Juan  of, 
111;  and  the  professions, 
178;  Shaw  compared  with, 
279,  289,  293 

Moody,  American  evangelist, 
18 

Morell,  Rev.  James,  in 
"  Candida,"  72,  73,  230,  231 

Morocco,    101 

Morris,  William,  31,  206 

Mozart,  111,  261 

"Music  Cure,  The,"  185-187 

Napoleon,  as  delineated  by 
Shaw,  85,  86,  280,  281 


Neues  Theater,  82 

New     Amsterdam    Theatre, 

N.  Y.,  95 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  95 
New     England,     in     "The 

Devil's    Disciple,"    89 
New  Haven,  49 
New  Lyric  Club,  49 
New  Woman,  The,  78 
New  York  City,  Shaw  plays 

in,  3,  46,  49,  66,  67,   101, 

176 
Nicola,   in    "  Arms    and   the 

Man,"  61 
Nietzsche,  93,  125,  215,  217, 

222,  293 
Nora,  in  "  A  Doll's  House," 

197,  250 
Nora,  in  "  John  Bull's  Other 

Island,"   115,   116 

"Oedipus  the  King,"  56 
"  O'Flaherty,  V.  C,"  8,  187 
Olivier,  Sidney,  20 
Overman,      Attaining,      216, 

218    233 
"  Overruled,"   173-176 

Palmer,  John,  9 

"  Paradise  Lost,"  292 

Park  Theatre,  177 

Parliament,  and  Shaw,  24 

"  Passion,  Poison,  and  Petri- 
faction," 119,  184 

Patiomkin,  in  "  Great  Cath- 
erine," 184 

Patsy,  in  "John  Bull's 
Other  Island,"  116 

Payne-Townshend,  Miss 

Charlotte  Frances,  Shaw 
marries,  29 

Percival,  in  "  Misalliance," 
160 

Petkoff,  in  "Arms  and  the 
Man,"   61 

"  Philanderer,  The,"  ana- 
lyzed, 45-49,  58,  174 


INDEX 


303 


Philistines  satirized,  164, 
249 

Pickering,  in  "  Pygmalion," 
182 

Pinero,  Sir  Arthur,  54,  173 

Plancus,  281 

Plato,  206 

Play,  the  one-act,  Shaw  a 
pioneer  in,  263 

Playhouse,  The,  of  New 
York,  120;  in  London,  139 

Playhouse,  value  and  signifi- 
cance, 161 

Play-writing,  162,  238;  Greek 
method,  264 

Positivist,  Shaw  a,  207;  re- 
ligion, 208 

Praed,  in  "  Mrs.  Warren's 
Profession,"  50,  54 

*'  Preface  for  Politicians, 
A,"  117,  118 

"Press  Cuttings,"  153-157, 
185,  262 

Princess  of  Wales  Theatre, 
The,  89 

Princess  Theatre,  N.  Y.,  66, 
263 

Prossy,  in  "Candida,"  68, 
71,   72 

Prostitution,  55 

Public  Opinion,  Shaw's  let- 
ter in,  18 

Puritans,  Shaw's  plays  for, 
89-91 

"Pygmalion,"   176-183,  262 

Rabelais,  11 

Raina,  in  "  Arms  and  the 
Man,"  59,  60,  61,  63,  64 

Ramsden,  in  "  Man  and 
Superman,"    112 

Rankin,  in  "  Capt.  Brass- 
bound's  Conversion,"  104 

"  Red  Badge  of  Courage, 
The,"   64 

Reginald,  in  "  Getting  Mar- 
ried,"  141 


Religion,  in  "  Blanco  Pos- 
net,"  150;  in  "  Androcles 
and  the  Lion,"  168;  Shaw's, 
205-209,  216-223 

Rembrandt,  232 

Revolution,  The  American, 
89 

Revolutionist,  defined,  191 

"  Revolutionist's  Handbook, 
The,"  111,  190 

Richte,  11 

Ridgeon,  Dr.,  in  "  The  Doc- 
tor's Dilemma,"  133 

Romance,  Shavian  philoso- 
phy anent,  110 

Roman  civilization,  169,  170 

Rome,  228 

Royal  Court  Theatre,  The, 
153 

Ruskin,  7,  31 

Russia,  Shaw's  vogue  in,  3 

St.  James  Theatre,  168 
Salt,  Henry,  20,  29,  216 
Salvation  Army,  in  "Major 

Barbara,"    121,    122,    124; 

in  "Fanny's  First  Play," 

165 
Sankey,    American    evange- 
list, 18 
Sarah,  in  "Major  Barbara," 

122 
Saturday  Review,  25 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  151 
Savoy  Theatre,  95 
Scandinavia,    Shaw's    vogue 

in,  3 
"School  for  Scandal,  The," 

284 
Schopenhauer,  Q22 
Scribe,  253 
"  Second     Mrs.     Tanqueray, 

The,"  54 
Sergius,  in  "  Arms  and  the 

Man,"     59,     60,     61,     63, 

64 
Sex  problems,  50,  51,  55,  68, 


304. 


INDEX 


75,  88,  90,  174,  200-203, 
286-288 

Shakspere,  compared  with 
Shaw,  3,  27,  56,  72,  83,  90, 
271,  272,  274,  279,  292; 
Shaw's  criticism  of,  125, 
160,  161,  204 

Shakspere  National  Memo- 
rial Theatre,  161 

Shavion  principle,  44;  in 
"Misalliance,"  158;  in 
"  Man  and  Superman,"  223 

Shelley,  29,  70,  267 

"She  Stoops  to  Conquer,"  284 

"  Showing-up  of  Blanco 
Posnet,  The,"  147-153, 
219,  252,  261,  277 

Shylock,  72 

Siberia,  Monk  of,   165 

Silver,  in  "  Treasure  Island," 
104 

Soames,  in  "  Getting  Mar- 
ried," 141 

Social  teachings  of  Shaw,  189 
et  seq. 

Socialism,  Shaw  and,  22,  153, 
191  et  seq. 

Spain,  228 

Spencer,  19,  217 

Sphinx,   The,  227-228 

Spintho,  170 

Stage  Society,  The,  147 

Stein,  Gertrude,  8 

Stevenson,  104,  118,  151,  191, 
267 

Stockholm,   263 

Straker,  in  "  Man  and  Super- 
man," 112 

Strand  Theatre,  The,  77,  100 

Strauss,  Oscar,  65 

Strindberg,  263 

Sudermann,  263 

Swedenborg,  225 

Swinburne,  267 

Tanner,  John,  in  "  Man  and 
Superman,"    78,    81,    109, 


110,  112,  113,  186,  260,  280, 
288 

Tarleton,  John,  in  "Misal- 
liance," 158 

Tchekov,  246 

Technic  of  play-writing,  238 

Tennyson,  267 

Terry,  Ellen,  82,  83,  100,  101 

Teufelskerl,  89 

Theatre  Royal,  95 

Theatre  Royal  du  Pare,  67 

Theatre,  the,  Shavian  defini- 
tion of,  11;  Shaw's  deflec- 
tion to,  25-28;  his  crafts- 
manship, 238 

Thessaly,  228 

Times,  the  London,  211 

"Toddles,"  140 

Tolstoy,  163,  258,  291 

Tommy,  in  "  Androcles  and 
the   Lion,"  171 

Trebitsch,  Siegfried,  167,  176 

Tree,  Sir  Herbert,  83,  176 

Trench,  in  "  Widowers' 
Houses,"  40,  41 

Twain,  Mark,  11 

Undershaft,  in  "Major  Bar- 
bara," 121,  123,  124,  125, 
126 

United  States  Commissioner 
of  Immigration,  on  public 
ownership,  199 

"  Unsocial  Socialist,  The," 
24 

Vaccination,  Shaw  scorns, 
136,  214,  217 

Valentine,  in  "  You  Never 
Can  Tell,"   78,  80,  81 

Vegetarianism,  Shaw  adopts, 
20;  in  "The  Doctor's  Di- 
lemma," 136;  in  "The 
Music  Cure,"  186,  216 

Velasquez,  232 

Victoria,  Queen,  85 

Vienna,  120 


INDEX 


305 


Violet,  in  "  Man  and  Super- 
man," 110,  113 

Vivie,  in  "  Mrs.  Warren's 
Profession,"  50,  51,  54, 
257,  280,  288 

Vivisection,  Shaw  satirizes, 
46,  136 

Wagner,  25,  240 

Walkley,  A.  B.,  98,  139,  164, 
292 

Wallace,  217 

Wallack's  Theatre,  N.  Y., 
129,  168 

Wallas,  Graham,  29 

War,  satirized  in  "  Arms  and 
the  Man,"  59,  64;  in 
"  Caesar  and  Cleopatra," 
99,  100;  in  "Major  Bar- 
bara," 121 ;  in  "  Press  Cut- 
tings," 155 

War,  the  European,  Shaw's 
diatribe  on,  8-10 

Warren,  Mrs.,  in  "  Mrs. 
Warren's  Profession,"  51, 
52,  53,  54,  280,  288 

"  Warren's  Profession,  Mrs.," 
9;  analyzed,  49-57,  58,  109, 
153,  186,  245,  252,  257,  268, 
277 

Washington,  George,  282,  283 

Washington  Square  Players, 
263 

Webb,  Sidney,  20,  192 


Wells,  H.  G.,  9,  190 

"  What        Every        Woman 

Knows,"  73,  103 
"  When  We  Dead  Awaken," 

Ibsen's,  32,  181 
Whistler,  8 
Whitehall,   162 
Whitman,   Walt,   240 
"Widowers'     Houses,"     26; 

analyzed,  39-45 
«  Wild  Duck,  The,"  45 
Wilde,  Oscar,  37 
William  in  "  You  Never  Can 

Tell,"  41,  78,  80,  155,  280 
"  Woman  of  No  Importance, 

A,"  37 
Woman's  social  saga,  54 
Woman  suffrage,  Shaw  and, 

146,  154,   156,  157,  196 
Wordsworth,  on  woman,  127, 

240 
Wyndham,   Sir    Charles,    on 

"Candida,"  67 


You  Made  Me  Love  You," 
etc.,  186 

You  Never  Can  Tell,"  41, 
76-82,  91,  155,  260,  262, 
267.  286 


Zangwill,  263 

Zeletical  Society,  Shaw  joins, 
19 


ARCHIBALD   HENDERSON'S   THE  CHANGING   DRAMA 

Its  Contributions  and  Tendencies.  By  the  Author  of  "George 
Bernard  Shaw :  His  Life  and  Works,"  "European  Drama- 
tists," etc.     12mo.    $1.50  net. 

The  pioneer  book  in  English  in  its  field.  While  a  number 
of  good  books,  taking  up  important  dramatists  and  discussing 
them  one  after  another,  are  available,  this  is  probably  the  first 
that  describes  the  significant  changes  and  movements  in  the 
drama  of  the  last  half  century,  illustrating  them  by  the  work  of 
leading  dramatists  and  by  apt  citations  of  and  quotations  from 
their  plays.  The  author,  publicist  as  well  as  dramatic  critic, 
aims  to  show  the  expression  of  the  larger  realities  of  con- 
temporary life  in  the  drama,  the  widening  of  social  influence 
of  the  stage,  the  new  technic,  form,  and  content  of  the  play, 
the  substitution  of  the  theme  for  the  hero,  the  conflict  of  wills 
for  that  of  arms,  etc.  In  short,  to  give  a  brief  but  authorita- 
tive general  survey  with  a  more  detailed  appraisal  of  some  of 
the  chief  creative  contributions. 

The  chapter  headings  indicate  the  content  and  scope  of  the 
work :  Drama  in  the  New  Age ;  The  New  Criticism  and  New 
Ethics;  Science  and  the  New  Drama;  The  New  Forms — 
Realism  and  the  Pulpit  Stage;  The  New  Forms — Naturalism 
and  the  Free  Theatre ;  The  Battle  with  Illusions ;  The  Ancient 
Bondage  and  the  New  Freedom ;  The  New  Technic ;  The 
Play  and  the  Reader;  The  New  Content;  The  Newer 
Tendencies. 

The  author,  though  an  American,  has  also  studied  the 
drama  in  the  theatres  of  Great  Britain  and  the  Continent,  and 
has  before  this  demonstrated  that  he  is  a  dramatic  scholar 
and  a  keen,  clear-eyed,  entertaining  critic.  His  articles  have 
appeared  in  La  Societe  Nouvelle,  Merciire  de  France,  Deutsche 
Revue,  Illustreret  Tidende,  Finsk  Tidskrift,  T.  P.'s  Maga- 
zine, etc.,  etc. 

Maurice  Maeterlinck  said  of  his  "Interpreters  of  Life" 
(now  incorporated  in  his  "European  Dramatists")  :  "You 
have  written  one  of  the  most  sagacious,  most  acute,  and  most 
penetrating  essays  in  the  whole  modern  literary  movement." 

"It  is  a  really  great  work."  said  Professor  William  Lyon 
Phelps  of  "George  Bernard  Shaw:  His  Life  and  Works." 

Of  his  "European  Dramatists,"  The  Dial  said:  "The  criti- 
cisms of  their  work  are  keen  and  lucid,  and  have  the  advan- 
tage of  coming  from  one  who  has  studied  the  plays 
exhaustively." 

HENRY     HOLT     AND      COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS  vii'14  NEW  YORK 


By  Clayton  Hamilton 

STUDIES  IN  STAGECRAFT 

Contents:  The  New  Art  of  Making  Plays,  The  Pictorial 
Stage,  The  Drama  of  Illusion,  The  Modern  Art  of  Stage 
Direction,  A  Plea  for  a  New  Type  of  Play,  The  Undramatic 
Drama,  The  Value  of  Stage  Conventions,  The  Supernatural 
Drama,  The  Irish  National  Theatre,  The  Personality  of  the 
Playwright,  Where  to  Begin  a  Play,  Continuity  of  Structure, 
Rhythm  and  Tempo,  The  Plays  of  Yesteryear,  A  New  De- 
fense of  Melodrama,  The  Art  of  the  Moving-Picture  Play, 
The  One-Act  Play  in  America,  Organizing  an  Audience,  The 
Function  of  Dramatic  Criticism,  etc.,  etc.     $1.50  net 

Nation:  "Information,  alertness,  coolness,  sanity  and  the  command 
of  a  forceful  and  pointed  English,  ...  A  good  book,  in  spite  of 
all  deductions." 

Prof.  Archibald  Henderson,  in  The  Drama:  _  "Uniformly  excellent  in 
quality.  .  .  .  Continuously  interesting  in  presentation  .  .  . 
uniform  for  high  excellence  and  elevated  standards.     .     .     ." 

Athenaeum  (London) :  "His  discussions,  though  incomplete,  are 
sufficiently  provocative   of  thought  to   be  well   worth   reading." 

THE  THEORY  OF  THE  THEATRE 

The  Theory  of  the  Theatre. — What  is  a  Play? — The 
Psychology  of  Theatre  Audiences. — The  Actor  and  the  Dra- 
matist.— Stage  Conventions  in  Modern  Times. — The  Four 
Leading  Types  of  Drama :  Tragedy  and  Melodrama ;  Comedy 
and  Farce. — The  Modern  Social  Drama,  etc.,  etc. 

Other  Principles  of  Dramatic  Criticism. — The  Public 
and  the  Dramatist. — Dramatic  Art  and  the  Theatre  Business. 
— Dramatic  Literature  and  Theatric  Journalism. — The  Inten- 
tion of  Performance. — The  Quality  of  New  Endeavor. — 
Pleasant  and  Unpleasant  Plays. — Themes  in  the  Theatre. — 
The  Function  of  Imagination,  etc.,  etc.  4th  printing.  $L50  net. 

Bookman:  "Presents  coherently  a  more  substantial  body  of  idea  on 
the  subject  than  perhaps  elsewhere  accessible." 

Boston  Transcript:  "At  every  moment  of  his  discussion  he  has  a 
firm  grasp  upon  every  phase  of  the  subject." 


THE  GERMAN  DRAMA  OF  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

By  Georg  Witkowski.     Translated  by  Prof.  L.  E.  Horning. 

Kleist,  Grillparzer,  Hebbel,  Ludwig,  Wildenbruch,  Sudermann,  Haupt- 
mann   and  minor   dramatists   receive   attention.      12mo.      $1.00. 

New  York  Times  Review:  "The  translation  of  this  brief,  clear  and 
logical  account  was  an  extremely  happy  idea.  Nothing  at  the  same  time 
so  comprehensive  and  terse  has  appeared  on  the  subject." 

HENRY      HOLT     AND      COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


By     GEORGE      MIDDLETON 

POSSESSION 

With  The  Groove,  The  Black  Tie,  A  Good  Woman,  Circles 
and  The  Unborn.  One-act  American  Plays.  (Just  pub- 
lished.)   $1.35  net. 

These  plays  respectively  concern  (1)  A  divorced  couple  and 
their  little  girl;  (2)  A  girl's  wish  to  escape  village  monotony; 

(3)  a  woman's  reputation  and    a    man's    public    usefulness; 

(4)  The  quiet  tragedy  of  a  mulatto  maid;  (5)  A  mother's 
sacrifice  to  keep  a  home  for  her  daughter,  and  (6)  How 
an  unknown  woman  brought  a  message  to  a  young  couple. 

EMBERS 

With  The  Failures,  The  Gargoyle,  In  His  House,  Ma- 
donna and  The  Man  Masterful.  One-act  American 
Plays.     $1.35. 

Richard  Burton,  in  The  Bellman:  "Embers  is  a  volume  of  sketches 
which  show  the  trained  hand  of  the  expert  and  are,  moreover,  decidedly 
interesting  for  their  psychological  value." 

Prof.  William  Lyon  Phelps  of  Yale:  "The  plays  are  admirable;  the 
conversations  have  the  true  style  of  human  speech,  and  show  first-rate 
economy  of  words,  every  syllable  advancing  the  plot.  The  little  dramas 
are  full  of  cerebration,  and  I  shall  recommend  them  in  my  public 
lectures." 

TRADITION 

With  On  Bail,  Mothers,  Waiting,  Their  Wife  and  The 
Cheat  of  Pity.    One-act  American  Plays.    $1.35. 

New  York  Times:  Mr.  Middleton's  plays  furnish  interesting  read- 
ing. .  .  .  The  author  deserves  praise  for  his  skill  and  workmanship 
.  .  .  succeeds  admirably  as  a  chronicler  of  striking  events  and  as  an 
interpreter  of  exceptional  people  in  exceptional  circumstances." 

NOWADAYS 

A  three-act  comedy  of  American  Life.     $1.00. 

The  Nation:  "Without  a  shock  or  a  thrill  in  it,  but  steadily  interest- 
ing and  entirely  human.  All  the  characters  are  depicted  with  fidelity 
and  consistency;   the  dialogue  is  good  and  the  plot  logical." 

Alice  Stone  Blackwell,  in  Woman's  Journal:  "The  spirit  of  the 
Twentieth  Century  is  in  his  plays  and  also  a  spirit  of  justice  anl  gener- 
osity towards   women." 


HENRY      HOLT      AND      COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


SIXTH  EDITION,    ENLARGED    AND    WITH    PORTRAITS 

HALE'S    DRAMATISTS     OF    TO-DAY 

Rostand,     Hauptmann,     Sudermann, 
PiNERO,  Shaw,  Phillips,  Maeterlinck 

By  Prof.    Edward    Everett    Hale,  Jr.,  of   Union  College. 
With  gilt  top,  $1.50  net;  by  mail,  $1.60. 

Since  this  work  first  appeared  in  1905,  Maeterlinck's  Sister 
Beatrice,  The  Blue  Bird  and  Mary  Magdalene,  Rostand's 
Chantecler  and  Pinero's  Mid-Channel  and  The  Thunder- 
bolt— among  the  notable  plays  by  some  of  Dr.  Hale's  drama- 
tists— have  been  acted  here.  Discussions  of  them  are  added 
to  this  new  edition,  as  are  considerations  of  Bernard  Shaw's 
and  Stephen  Phillips'  latest  plays.  The  author's  papers  on 
Hauptmann  and  Sudermann,  with  slight  additions,  with  his 
*'Note  on  Standards  of  Criticism,"  "Our  Idea  of  Tragedy," 
and  an  appendix  of  all  the  plays  of  each  author,  with  dates  of 
their  first  performance  or  publication,  complete  the  volume. 

Bookman:  "He  writes  in  a  pleasant,  free-and-easy  way.  .  .  .  He 
accepts  things  chiefly  at  their  face  value,  but  he  describes  them  so  ac- 
curately and  agreeably  that  he  recalls  vividly  to  mind  the  plays  we 
have  seen  and  the  pleasure  we  have  found  in  them." 

New  York  Evening  Post :  "  It  is  not  often  nowadays  that  a  theatrical 
b  ok  can  be  met  with  so  free  from  gush  and  mere  eulogy,  or  so  weighted 
by  common  sense  ...  an  excellent  chronological  appendix  and  full 
index    .    .    .    uncommonly  useful  for  reference." 

Dial:  "  Noteworthy  example  of  literary  criticism  in  one  of  the  most 
interesting  of  literary  fields.  .  .  .  Provides  a  varied  menu  of  the 
most  interesting  character.  .  .  .  Prof.  Hale  establishes  confidential 
relations  with  the  reader  from  the  start.  .  .  .  Very  definite  opinions, 
clearly  reasoned  and  amply  fortified  by  example.  .  .  .  Well  worth 
reading  a  second  time." 

New  York  Tribune:    "  Both  instructive  and  entertaining." 

Brooklyn  Eagle:  "A  dramatic  critic  who  is  not  just  'busting'  him- 
self with  Titanic  intellectualities,  but  who  is  a  readable  dramatic  critic. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Hale  is  a  modest  and  sensible,  as  well  as  an  acute  and  sound 
critic.  .  .  .  Most  people  will  be  surprised  and  delighted  with  Mr. 
Hale's  simplicity,  perspicuity  and  ingenuousness." 

The  Theatre:  "A  pleasing  lightness  of  touch.  .  .  .  Very  read- 
able boolc." 


HENRY     HOLT     AND     COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


'TNR" 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY — TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subjea  to  immediate  recall. 

DEC  3     1968  64^^^''"^^^'^''^^ 


RECEIVED 


LOAN 

MAY  30  1979 


NOV  Z  5  "68  -10  AM 


LOAN  DEPT 

FEB  15  1973 


'^«.  c«. 


JUH 


ms,mw 


-2-73 -IPM  1  6 


SEP    41975 


WAR  23  1986 


'*    «S    6*75 


•V'K 


nB 


:^m  m  1  ^985 


-m-^t^^ft 


REC  CIR.     JUN  1  2    197^. 


LD  21A-38m-5,'68 
(.T401slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


1   r%A 


T. 


GtNtR^L 


UBRA«V-".C.Bt«KEUV 


